As work injury lawyers, we know that the COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the nation and has resulted in many infections and deaths in California and other states. As the state begins to reopen and more people return to their jobs, many people are concerned about what might happen if they get infected at work. Recently, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that makes it easier for people who contract COVID-19 while working to recover workers’ compensation benefits.

Governor Newsom’s executive order

On May 6, Governor Newsom announced that he had signed an executive order to allow workers who are diagnosed with coronavirus disease to recover workers’ compensation benefits.[1] The order makes a rebuttable presumption that people who work outside of their homes and contract COVID-19 were exposed to the virus at work. Before the order, workers had the burden of proving that they contracted their illnesses while they were working on the job. This order instead places the burden on the employers to prove that their employees contracted the disease while they were not working.

The order will provide workers who have worked since March 19 with the rebuttable presumption that they contracted COVID-19 while they were working. March 19 was when the state issued its stay at home order. Many workers in essential industries have continued to work to provide critical services and care to others. This order will make it easier for them to seek and obtain workers’ compensation benefits if they have contracted or do contract the coronavirus disease.

The rebuttable presumption will be available to any worker who contracts COVID-19 within 14 days of performing work for their employers between March 19 and 60 days after the executive order was signed. The order is scheduled to remain effective until July 5, which is 60 days after the governor issued the order.

Why the order is important

Many workers have remained on the job during the COVID-19 pandemic and should be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if they contract the disease because of being exposed while they are working. The order comes as the state has moved into the second phase of reopening. Governor Newsom announced a four-phase plan to reopen the state. The second phase began on May 8 when retailers were allowed to reopen for curbside pickup.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the California Federation of Labor previously requested the workers’ compensation change on March 27 in a letter that was sent to legislative leaders and the governor.[2] Without the changes, it could be hard for workers to prove that they contracted their illnesses at work since the novel coronavirus spreads so easily.

The rule change will make it much easier for retail workers from chain stores such as Target, Rite-Aid, CVS, and Wal-Mart to recover workers’ compensation benefits. It will also help airline attendants from many different airlines that operate in California. Delivery drivers for companies like Amazon, UPS, and FedEx will also benefit since many of them have continued working to deliver goods to people who are staying at home during the pandemic. Medical workers, including doctors, nurses, and hospital staff, will also be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if they contract the disease within 14 days of working.

Opposition to the rule change

The California Chamber of Commerce led numerous business groups in opposing the change to the process for workers to recover workers’ compensation benefits. They sent a letter to the governor and leaders in the legislature on April 7, arguing that the change would force businesses to operate as a safety net against the spread of the disease. They also argued that people who are unable to work because of contracting COVID-19 are already eligible for relief through the federal pandemic relief fund.

After the governor announced the executive order, the California Chamber of Commerce issued a statement. It argued that the costs for businesses in the state will be driven up as more people qualify for workers’ compensation benefits because their workers’ compensation insurance premiums will be increased. Some of the biggest workers’ compensation insurance providers in the state have already removed the requirement that essential workers prove that they contracted the disease while they were working on the job.

What benefits are available to workers who contract COVID-19?

Workers’ compensation benefits are available to workers who are injured or become ill while they are working at their jobs. Because of the availability of workers’ compensation, workers must file workers’ compensation claims with their employers’ insurance providers to recover benefits instead of filing lawsuits against their employers. Because they are prevented from filing lawsuits, workers do not have to prove that their employers were negligent in causing their injuries or illnesses. However, before the rule change, they were required to prove that they became ill or were injured at their workplaces instead of somewhere else. The executive order now places the burden on the employers to prove that the workers were exposed to the novel coronavirus outside of work. They will have 30 days to rebut the presumption after an ill worker files a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Employers in California are required to provide workers’ compensation benefits either by having insurance policies or by self-insuring their workers. When workers contract COVID-19 within 14 days of working, they will be entitled to recover benefits. The workers’ compensation program provides benefits to cover all of the medical costs of treating COVID-19, including doctors’ visits, hospital stays, medication, rehabilitation, and other medical expenses. Securing workers’ compensation benefits means that workers will not have to pay any copays or use their health insurance coverage to pay for their treatment.

Workers’ compensation also provides more benefits beyond paying for a worker’s medical expenses.[3] If a worker contracts COVID-19 and is temporarily unable to return to his or her job, he or she may also recover temporary total disability payments from workers’ compensation. If a worker is left with permanently disabling injuries that prevent him or her from returning to work, he or she might recover permanent disability benefits from workers’ compensation. For example, some people have had to undergo amputations because of clotting problems caused by COVID-19. If these injuries prevent them from returning to their jobs, they may be eligible to receive permanent workers’ compensation disability benefits to replace a percentage of their income on an ongoing basis.

Finally, the families of workers who contract COVID-19 and subsequently die from the disease will also be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Family members can recover death benefits to pay for their loved ones’ funeral and burial expenses. They can also receive ongoing death benefits to replace a portion of their loved ones’ former incomes.

Get help from a California workers’ compensation lawyer

If you have contracted COVID-19 while working, getting help from an experienced workers’ compensation attorney at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers might help you to make sure that you recover all of the benefits to which you should be entitled. Contact us today to learn about your rights by calling us at 866.966.5240.

Sources

[1] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/05/06/governor-newsom-announces-workers-compensation-benefits-for-workers-who-contract-covid-19-during-stay-at-home-order/

[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-06/newsom-workers-compensation-coronavirus-claims-covid19-presumption-california

[3] https://www.victimslawyer.com/work-injuries.html

Construction workers and people who are walking near construction sites may be injured because these worksites are hazardous. When construction workers are injured at their jobs, they may be limited to recovering workers’ compensation benefits from their employers’ insurance carriers. However, when the negligence of third parties causes their accidents, they may be able to file third-party negligence claims against the responsible parties.

In general, contractors that hire subcontracting companies to perform work at their worksites may not be held liable when the employees of the subcontractors are injured at their jobs. However, as Strouse v. Webcor Construction, L.P., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A148863 shows, there are some circumstances in which a general contractor may be liable to pay damages to the employees of subcontractors when the general contractor affirmatively contributes to the accident and resulting injury.

Factual and procedural background of the case

James Strouse was employed by ACCO, a company that had been hired by Webcor as an independent contractor to perform plumbing and ventilation services at a major project to upgrade the California Memorial Football Stadium in Berkely to meet seismic standards.

Webcor contracted with the University of California to complete the improvements on the stadium so that it would have greater seismic safety. In its contract with the university, Webcor agreed to be solely responsible to initiate, maintain, and supervise the safety programs and precautions at the worksite. Webcor subsequently subcontracted with Acco for the ventilation and plumbing work. In its contract, Acco agreed to comply with all laws and regulations, including those regarding safety.

As a part of the project, Webcor created numerous expansion joints, which are spaces between the concrete so that it could move in an earthquake. The joints were openings that were each about 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep. During the construction, Webcor maintained sole responsibility for covering these openings and for inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the covers that were placed over them. A carpenter installed two sheets of plywood in each opening and secured them.

Some of the workers would remove the covers to work within the expansion gaps. In some cases, they failed to re-secure the opening covers. Webcor officials were supposed to inspect and repair the covers each day and would not allow any other party to fix them.

Strouse was walking while carrying a heavy object on Jan. 9, 2012, when he walked over one of the expansion joint covers. The plywood was loose and gave way under him. He suffered injuries to his hip, knee, and sacroiliac joint. Strouse subsequently filed a lawsuit against Webcor, alleging that it was negligent in its duty to maintain and repair the expansion joint covers. Webcor filed a cross-complaint against Acco to seek indemnification.

After a jury trial, the jury deliberated for 90 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of Strouse. It found that Acco and Strouse were not liable and assigned 100% of the liability to Webcor. The jury’s verdict in favor of Strouse was $2,626,750. After the trial, the judge granted Acco’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $298,843. Webcor filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and it was denied. Webcor filed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals, alleging several grounds of error.

Issue: Whether Webcor could be liable for injuries to an employee of its subcontractor; (2) Whether Webcor affirmatively contributed to Strouse’s injuries; and (3)Whether the trial court improperly denied Webcor’s proposed instructions and its motion to set aside the verdict?

Webcor raised multiple issues on appeal. It appealed the judgment against it, claiming that it should not have been held liable for the injuries to the employee of Acco as a general contractor. It argued that the court should have not used CACI 2009B to instruct the jury because it used the language “substantial factor” instead of affirmative contribution. Webcor also argued that the court erred in denying its alternative jury instruction that used the language “affirmative contribution” and a special instruction that Webcor had submitted. It also argued that the jury should not have been instructed on negligence per se and should have denied Acco’s motion for attorney’s fees because it had not alleged pleaded them in its answer to the cross-complaint.

Rule: The contractor that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable to employees of the independent contractor for personal injury; however, the contractor that hires an independent contractor may be liable to employees of the independent contractor if the hirer retains control over the safety conditions of the worksite.

In Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), the California Supreme Court held that an employee of a subcontractor who is injured while he or she is at work may not hold the contractor liable for his or her injuries. This is because the worker can seek workers’ compensation benefits through his or her direct employer. However, in Hooker v. Department of Transportation, the Supreme Court noted that there was an exception to the Privette doctrine. Under the exception, a general contractor may be liable for the injuries of an employee of a subcontractor in cases in which the general contractor has retained control over the safety of the worksite and has affirmatively contributed to the accidents that result.

For jury instruction errors, they will only necessitate a reversal and a grant of a new trial if they result in prejudice to the degree that a correct instruction would have resulted in a different verdict under Whitely v. Phillip Morris, 117 Cal.App.4th 635 (2004). Prevailing parties are allowed to file a motion for attorneys’ fees in California.

Analysis

The court first considered the Privette case and the exception that was noted by the California Supreme Court. In reviewing Webcor’s control over the expansion joints and their safety, it noted that Webcor would not allow any other party to inspect, maintain, or repair the joint coverings other than its own employees. It also noted that while daily inspections were required, none had been performed in the two days preceding the accident, meaning that Webcor could potentially hold liability to Strouse.

It then reviewed Webcor’s argument that the jury instruction that was given by the court that contained the language “substantial factor” instead of “affirmative contribution” was in error. It first noted that a similar argument in a different case had failed and found that the jury instruction that was given was not erroneous. The court also found that it was not error for the court to deny the alternative jury instruction that was proposed by Webcor, finding that it was misleading and that the court had no duty to revise or correct alternative instructions that were submitted to it. Finally, the court found that any instruction errors that might have occurred would not have changed the outcome of the case, pointing out that the jury took only 90 minutes to deliberate and found that Webcor was 100% liable for the injury accident. It also found that Acco had a right to file a motion for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the cross-claim.

Construction accident cases can be complex because so many parties may be potentially involved. As this case demonstrates, it is possible for a general contractor to be liable when it has affirmatively contributed to an injury accident through its negligence in controlling and maintaining safety at the worksite.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling and the jury verdict. It also upheld the award of attorneys’ fees to Acco and ordered Webcor to pay Acco’s and Strouse’s attorney fees and costs for the appeal.

Get help from the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat

If you have suffered an injury accident at a construction site, there may be multiple parties that should be named in a lawsuit as well as other potential avenues of recovery. Getting help from an experienced construction accident lawyer at the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat might help you to recover full compensation for your losses. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Resources

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/a148863.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2019-04-26-personal-injury-23a6db683d&utm_content=text-case-read-more-5

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/5/689.html

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/27/198.html

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2004/a091444m.html

https://www.victimslawyer.com/construction-injuries.html

In California, people who suffer work-related injuries that are permanently disabling may recover disability compensation from their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance. However, if a part of the disability is caused by an underlying condition, the law requires that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apportions the cause between the work injury and the underlying condition. City of Petaluma v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Cal. Ct. App., Case No. A153811 dealt with a case in which a police officer had an asymptomatic underlying condition that was triggered by a workplace injury. The California Court of Appeals looked at when apportionment is required and when it is not.

Factual and procedural background

Aaron Lindh worked as a police officer for the City of Petaluma. During a canine training course, Lindh received three to six blows to the left side of his head. Following the injury, Lindh began suffering severe headaches that lasted for several hours. A month following the work-related injury accident, Lindh lost nearly all of the vision in his left eye. Lindh saw two different doctors. Neither of the doctors attributed his vision loss to the work accident. Lindh submitted a claim for workers’ compensation for his disability.

A neurologist who was the qualified medical examiner testified that Lindh suffered from a previously asymptomatic condition of defective blood flow to his left eye. He testified that Lindh was not disabled before he received the blows to his head and that he may have retained most of the vision in his left eye if he had not been struck. However, he also testified that the underlying condition may have caused a vision loss even if Lindh had not been injured. The doctor then apportioned the cause of Lindh’s injury and resulting disability as 85 percent to the underlying condition and 15 percent to the work-related incident. The administrative law judge denied the apportionment and instead found that Lindh suffered a 40 percent permanent disability as was stipulated by the parties. The City of Petaluma appealed, arguing that the court should have apportioned the cause between the underlying medical condition and the work accident as the QME had testified. The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and ruled that Lindh’s disability was not subject to apportionment. The city appealed to the California Court of Appeals, arguing that apportionment was required in the case.

Issue: Whether an asymptomatic underlying condition that could potentially never present symptoms requires apportionment when it contributes to the cause of the disability?

In California, administrative law judges apportion the causes of a work-related disability between any preexisting or underlying conditions that the workers have and the actual workplace injury. When the cause is apportioned, the workers will receive the percentage that is attributed to workplace accidents but not to the underlying conditions.

Rule: QMEs must include an apportionment determination in their reports that state the percentage of the cause of the disability to attribute to the work accidents and the percentage that should be attributed to preexisting conditions or prior incidents.

Before 2004, administrative law judges were prohibited from apportioning claims based on causation. This meant that workers who had preexisting conditions that were aggravated by work-related accidents could recover compensation for their entire disability rating instead of just the portion that was attributable to the work accidents. However, the state legislature changed the law in 2004. The new law states that doctors who serve as QMEs must include apportionment determinations in their reports when industrial injuries result from a combination of preexisting conditions and workplace accidents. If they don’t apportion the causes, they must include statements about why the did not.

Analysis

In California, people who suffer an industrial injury while they are on the job may recover several types of remedies, as we have previously discussed. Workers may be entitled to compensation for their related medical expenses, temporary disability payments while they are out of work, a permanent disability award that is calculated according to the residual injury that remains in the affected body area, and a supplemental job displacement benefit if they cannot perform the functions of their prior jobs.

Lindh’s case involves looking at his permanent disability rating and determining whether it should have been apportioned. The court first reviewed the statutory changes that were made by the California Legislature. The statutes provided that doctors should include a statement of apportionment in their reports, and the apportionment determination must be based on sound medical evidence. The statutes further state that the employers are liable only for the portion of the disability that is directly attributed to the workplace accidents and not for the portion that is attributed to other causes. Another statute specifies that the other factors include preexisting conditions, including those that are asymptomatic.

The court then reviewed other cases that dealt with apportionment after the legislative changes. The court found multiple cases in which the court found that apportionment could be based on asymptomatic conditions and non-industrial sources.

Lindh argued that the QME’s testimony did not amount to substantial medical evidence. The court examined the doctor’s testimony and found that the doctor was clear in his assessment that the disability was caused by both the underlying condition and the work accident. The court also found that the doctor clearly testified that Lindh could have maintained his vision for the rest of his life or that he could have suffered a loss of vision even if he had not suffered blows to his head because of the underlying condition. Finally, Lindh argued that apportionment is only required when there is medical evidence that the underlying condition would result in the disability. However, the court rejected this argument because it reflected the state of the law prior to the 2004 statutory changes.

Conclusion

The court overruled the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and directed it to apportion Lindh’s permanent disability according to the doctor’s testimony. Because only 15 percent of his injury could be attributed to the workplace injury, and he was considered to be 40 percent permanently disabled, this meant that he would receive a substantially lower permanent disability award.

Contact an experienced Los Angeles personal injury lawyer

If you have been injured in a workplace accident and have learned that you have a preexisting condition that may have contributed to your disability, you may need legal help. Contact the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat today to learn more about your rights to workers’ compensation benefits.

Resources

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/a153811.html https://www.victimslawyer.com/work-injuries.html

In California, companies that hire contractors and subcontractors are generally not liable when the negligent actions of the contractors or subcontractors cause injury accidents. However, as Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., Cal. Ct. App., Case No. D070431 shows, there is an exception to the general rule. When the hiring companies have negligently retained control of the safety conditions at the facilities, the hiring companies may be liable to pay damages if their negligence was a contributing factor to the resulting accidents and injuries. If you have suffered an injury while working for a contractor at a job site, you might want to talk to an experienced lawyer to find out if you might have the basis to file a legal claim against the hiring company.

Factual background of the case

Jose M. Sandoval was employed by ROS Electrical Supply. He was contacted by Mr. Sharghi, a contractor with TransPower. TransPower had been hired by Qualcomm to upgrade Qualcomm’s power generation system in 2013. Qualcomm needed to upgrade the amperage of components called bus bars from 1,200 amps to 2,000 amps. On June 15, 2015, Sharghi inspected the breaker system to see if the bus bars were rated to handle 2,000 amps or if they were 1,200 amps and needed upgrading. During the inspection, Sharghi was unable to see the bus bars inside of a panel. He contacted Sandoval to work as a subcontractor with him and to return to the facility for a new inspection on Aug. 3.

Sharghi reportedly did not tell Sandoval to bring his personal protective equipment, and Sandoval did not bring it. Sandoval had previously been hired to perform work for Sharghi many times, and the two had known each other professionally for more than 20 years. Sharghi testified that he had told Sandoval that they could conduct a safe inspection of the panel because it would be de-energized by Qualcomm. Sharghi, his son Omid, and Sandoval arrived at the Qualcomm facility at 7 am. They signed in and went with three Qualcomm employees to the breaker to conduct the inspection. The Qualcomm employees told Sharghi that one half of the breaker was de-energized while the other part was not. The employees then left the room where the inspection was being conducted.

Sharghi reportedly directed Guadana, a worker who was wearing PPE, to remove a panel on the utility side of the breaker. The utility side was still energized, but Sandoval was not told that it was. Sharghi then got down below the breaker in an attempt to photograph the bus bars from behind the removed panel. While he was doing so, he heard a booming sound and a scream. When he came out, he saw Sandoval covered in blue flames from an arc flash that had occurred from the backside of the breaker where the panel had been removed. Sandoval filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm, ROS Electrical Supply, and TransPower. He listed his employer in the lawsuit because his employer failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance. He sued Qualcomm and TransPower on several negligence grounds.

Issue: Whether Qualcomm retained control over the safety conditions at the facility where the accident occurred?

Sandoval’s case went to a jury trial. At trial, Qualcomm argued that it was not liable for the actions of TransPower or Sandoval as a contractor and a subcontractor. The company argued that it did not retain control over the safety conditions at the facility because its workers told Sharghi which side was energized, and the workers were not in the room when the accident happened. Qualcomm also argued that it had not authorized the removal of the panel, and Sharghi had not gotten permission to remove it before he did so.

The jury found that Qualcomm had negligently retained control over the safety conditions of the facility. It awarded a gross verdict of $1,094,003.42 in economic damages and $6 million in noneconomic damages. The jury found that Qualcomm was 46 percent at fault, TransPower was 45 percent at fault, and Sandoval was 9 percent at fault. Qualcomm filed a motion for a directed verdict in its favor from the court notwithstanding the jury’s verdict. It also filed a motion for a new trial on the apportioning of liability. The court denied the JNOV motion and granted the motion for a new trial on the limited question of the percentage of liability allocated to each party. Qualcomm filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeals.

Rule: Hiring companies are not liable for the actions of their contractors and subcontractors unless an exception applies.

In California, companies that hire contractors are generally not considered to be liable for the negligent actions of the contractors or subcontractors. However, an exception to the general rule occurs when the hiring company retains control over the facility in a negligent manner. Qualcomm argued that it did not retain control because its employees did not take any affirmative action that was negligent and that contributed to the accident and injury. At the trial court level, Qualcomm had requested that the court give a jury instruction with italicized language about affirmative contribution. However, the court declined to give the instruction and instead gave the model jury instruction for retention of control.

Analysis

The court analyzed the trial based on its decision in Regalado v. Callaghan, 3 Cal.App.5th 582 (2016). In that case, an owner-builder hired a pool and spa contractor to build a pool in his backyard. He had installed a pre-engineered pit. A year later, the owner-builder hired a second pool contractor and asked him to install a heated propane tank in the pit to heat the pool. Neither the owner nor the contractor read the instruction manual, which said not to install a propane tank in a pit because of a risk of explosion. The plaintiff turned on the heater after the installation and was severely burned when the propane exploded. The defendant in the case argued that the jury should have been instructed that to be liable, he must have affirmatively contributed to the ultimate explosion.

The court found in Regalado that a hirer can affirmatively contribute to an accident through a negligent omission in safety. It also found that there was sufficient evidence that the homeowner had retained control of the safety conditions of the premises.

When applying the earlier decision to the instant case, the court found that Qualcomm had similarly retained control of the premises. It owned the facility, and its employees turned off part of the breaker system using lock-out/tag-out procedures. While the employees told Sharghi that one side was hot, they failed to tell the other workers, including Sandoval. They then left the room during the inspection when the accident happened.

Conclusion

The appellate court found that the trial court was correct in denying the JNOV motion. It also found that the court was correct in granting a new trial for the limited purpose of examining the apportionment of damages between the parties. The case was sent back to the trial court for a new trial on that limited basis.

Contact the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat

There are times when hiring companies of contractors and subcontractors might be liable for the negligence of the contracting parties. If you have been injured at a worksite while you were working for a contractor, you may want to talk to an experienced personal injury attorney. Contact the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat for a free and confidential case analysis. For more information on burn injury claims, click here. For more information on industrial work accident claims in California, click here.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/d070431.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-10-26-personal-injury-435aa10eb3&utm_content=text-case-title-1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2104900423835533229&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

In California, the family members of people who are killed while they are working may recover benefits through workers’ compensation. When the accidents are caused by the negligence of third parties, the families may be able to file third-party lawsuits against the third parties in addition to their workers’ compensation claims. In some cases, failures to act may be compensable if they are negligent. In Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc., Cal App. # F074083, the court ruled that a third-party safety consultant could be held liable for omissions if the plaintiff is able to prove all of the elements of the negligent undertaking by the consultant.

Factual background of the case

Oscar J. Perdia, Jr. was a 19-year-old man who was employed by Double Diamond Farms. Double Diamond Farms had hired HR Mobile Services to help the farm with workers’ compensation issues, training, loss prevention and human resources. HR Mobile agreed that it helped Double Diamond with workplace safety issues. Double Diamond Farm paid HR Mobile $24,000 per year for its services.

On Sept. 20, 2012, Oscar Peredia, Jr. was working at Double Diamond Farm. He was sweeping gravel off of a feed slab when a worker who was driving a John Deere tractor with a front-end loader attached to it struck him. Peredia was knocked down and run over by the front tire of the tractor, which killed him.

Double Diamond Farm had been in business since 1998 and had reached its agreement with HR Mobile Services in May 2012. HR Mobile Services gave the farm several human resources documents, including a form injury and illness prevention plan and some safety policy documents. HR Mobile Services held a safety training meeting on Aug. 24, 2012, including a training on tractor and front-end loader safety. The driver who hit Peredia, Jr. attended that meeting.

Oscar Peredia, Jr.’s parents, Oscar and Laura Peredia, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against HR Mobile Services and others in 2013. In 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against HR Mobile Services, alleging negligence. The negligence claims that were filed by the Peredias alleged that HR Mobile was negligent in its failure to create a safety plan that addressed workers who worked near heavy equipment. The plaintiffs also alleged that HR Mobile Services was negligent in failing to instruct workers to wear high-visibility clothing and failing to educate the workers about the hazards of heavy equipment. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that HR Mobile Services inadequately managed its responsibilities under the injury prevention plan.

Issue: Whether omissions are wrongful by their nature under Cal. Civ. Code 2343 or if the liability of the agent is precluded by the statute?

HR Mobile Services filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were without merit because they couldn’t prove causation or duty in their negligence claims. The trial court ruled that the claims were precluded by Cal. Civ. Code 2343 and granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial court’s ruling.

Rule: Agents are only responsible to third parties when their acts are wrongful in nature.

Cal. Civ. Code § 2343 states that agents of principals will only be liable in one of the three following situations but not in any others:

• When the agent consents to and is given credit in a transaction;
• When the agent enters into a contract that is written without believing that he or she has the ability to do so; or
• When the agent’s actions are wrongful in nature.

The contract between HR Mobile Services and Double Diamond farm was oral. In this case, the issue was whether the company’s alleged omissions were wrongful by nature. If they could be considered to be wrongful by nature, then HR Mobile Services could potentially be held liable. If they were not wrongful by nature, then the negligence claims would fail.

Analysis

California recognizes a tort called negligent undertaking, which occurs when an agent performs services for another party that the agent recognizes are important for the safety of other third parties. In Artiglio v. Corning, 18 Cal.4th 604 (1998), the California Supreme Court discussed the tort of negligent undertaking. According to the court, agents who perform services for another party that it knows are necessary because they may affect the safety of third parties may be liable to the third parties if one of the following applies:

• The failure increased the risk of harm; or
• The agent has undertaken a duty that would have been owed by the other to the third party; or
• The third party was harmed because of his or her reliance or because of the other party’s reliance on the agent to perform the duty.

The plaintiffs argued that HR Mobile Services owed a duty of care because it undertook the performance of the safety duties that Double Diamond owed to its workers and that Double Diamond relied on the performance because of the injury and illness prevention plan. The court first ruled that safety consultants can be liable to third parties under a claim of negligent undertaking. The court then examined the statutory language of Cal. Civ. Code § 2343. In Kurtin v. Elieff, 215 Cal.App.4th 455 (2013), the court found that while agents are not responsible for the torts of the principals, they are responsible for their own independent torts. Civil torts are civil wrongs that give rise to liability. Since negligent undertaking is a recognized tort in California, it could be considered to be wrongful in nature under the statute.

Conclusion

The court found that a safety consultant’s negligent undertaking is wrongful in nature and could give rise to liability if the plaintiffs are able to prove the elements of the negligence claims. Because of this, the court found that there were material issues of fact that should be decided by a jury. The trial court’s granting of the motion of summary judgment was overturned, and the case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

Contact an experienced injury lawyer in Los Angeles

If you have been injured in a workplace accident because of the negligent acts or omissions of a third party, you might have the grounds to file a third-party lawsuit against the responsible party. In order to identify all of the parties that you might be able to name as defendants, it is important for you to talk to an experienced personal injury attorney in Los Angeles. Contact the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat today for a free analysis of your potential claim.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/f074083.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-08-03-personal-injury-86088e8710&utm_content=text-case-title-7 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/civ/division-3/2342-2345/2343 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/18/604.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1628428.html