California Supreme Court Holds That Cal-OSHA Safety Regulations Are Delegable
January, 2012
Introduction
California's Privette doctrine holds that employees of independent contractors injured in the workplace cannot generally sue the party that hired the independent contractor unless the hirer concealed a preexisting dangerous condition or engaged in some other form of affirmative misconduct that contributed to the injury.
In SeaBright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 590, 2011 WL 3655109, the California Supreme Court extended the Privette doctrine, holding that the hirer cannot be held liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee resulting from the hirer's failure to comply with the California Occupational Safety and Health Act ("Cal-OSHA") because the hirer's duty to comply with Cal-OSHA safety regulations, if any, is presumptively delegated to the independent contractor.
Facts
U.S. Airways, Inc. ("U.S. Airways") operated a conveyor to move passenger luggage at the San Francisco International Airport. The airport owned the conveyor, but U.S. Airways was authorized to use it and responsible for its maintenance.
U.S. Airways hired Lloyd W. Aubry Co. ("Aubry"), an independent contractor, to maintain and repair the conveyor. U.S. Airways did not direct nor participate in Aubry's work.
Anthony Verdon Lujan ("Lujan"), an employee of Aubry, injured his arm while inspecting the conveyor. Lujan received workers' compensation benefits from SeaBright Insurance Company ("SeaBright"), Aubry's workers' compensation insurer.
SeaBright sued U.S. Airways to recover the benefits it paid to Lujan. Lujan intervened in the lawsuit alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability against U.S. Airways.
U.S. Airways sought summary judgment asserting that under the Privette doctrine a hirer of an independent contractor can be liable for a workplace injury only if the hirer retained control over the contractor's work and exercised that control in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee's workplace injury. U.S. Airways contended that it did not affirmatively contribute to Lujan's injury.
SeaBright countered that U.S. Airways affirmatively contributed to Lujan's injury because the conveyor lacked safety guards and thus violated Cal-OSHA safety regulations.
The trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. Airways on the grounds that there was no evidence that U.S. Airways affirmatively contributed to the accident. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that U.S. Airways "had a nondelegable duty to ensure that the conveyor had safety guards," which created a triable issue of fact as to whether the airline's failure to perform this duty affirmatively contributed to the injury. The California Supreme Court granted review, superseding the Court of Appeal's opinion.
Analysis
SeaBright claimed that Cal-OSHA imposed a duty of care on U.S. Airways that extended to Lujan, and that duty could not be delegated to Aubry. U.S. Airways acknowledged a Cal-OSHA imposed duty of care to Lujan, but claimed that it was delegated to Aubry as part of their maintenance contract.
As U.S. Airways conceded a Cal-OSHA duty of care to Lujan, the Supreme Court did not rule on this issue. But the Supreme Court hinted that a hirer may not owe a Cal-OSHA duty of care to employees of an independent contractor because the duty applies only to an "employer" as defined by statute, and the hirer may not be deemed an "employer" under the statutory definition.
Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether U.S. Airways could delegate, and did delegate, to its independent contractor any duty it owed to the independent contractor's employee to comply with the Cal-OSHA safety requirements.
The Supreme Court held that any tort law duty a hirer owes under Cal-OSHA to the employees of an independent contractor is delegable to the independent contractor. The Supreme Court indicated that U.S. Airways presumptively delegated its Cal-OSHA duty at the time it hired Aubry as an independent contractor. The delegation was implied as an incident of the hiring, and included the duty to identify the absence of the safety guards required by Cal-OSHA regulations and to take reasonable steps to address that hazard.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the nondelegable duties doctrine -- which prevents a party that owes a duty to others from evading responsibility by claiming to have delegated that duty to an independent contractor -- was inapplicable to the Cal-OSHA duty alleged against U.S. Airways. The nondelegable duties doctrine applies only when the duty preexists and does not arise from the contract with the independent contractor.
The duty U.S. Airways owed to Aubry's employees did not predate the contract; instead, it arose out of the contract. As the duty existed only because of the contractual work Aubry performed for U.S. Airways, the duty did not fall within the nondelegable duties doctrine. In contrast, the Supreme Court made it clear that U.S. Airways owed its own employees a preexisting duty to provide a safe workplace, and the duty to its own employees was nondelegable.
Learning Point
The Supreme Court has held that a hirer's Cal-OSHA duty of care to employees of an independent contractor is now presumptively delegable to the independent contractor as part of their contract. This is an important victory for companies that hire independent contractors, the general liability carriers that insure them, and the defense bar.
The holding is significant because it closes a loophole that plaintiffs' attorneys have used to circumvent the exclusive remedy afforded by the workers' compensation system for workplace injuries. Plaintiffs' attorneys can no longer bootstrap workplace injury claims against hirers on violations of Cal-OSHA safety regulations because the duty of care is now presumptively delegated to the independent contractor. Thus, the holding sifts out a whole line of cases that plaintiffs' attorneys used to get past summary judgment to force settlement or trial. The holding effectively limits the injured employee's recovery to workers' compensation benefits.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2011v4) 2011 Volume 4 Table of Contents
