LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - With narrow exceptions, property owners can’t be liable for injuries suffered by independent contractors working on their premises, a California appeals court ruled, reversing a $12.6 million jury verdict won by an electrical worker who was injured when a heavy roof hatch fell on him.
“Once an independent contractor becomes aware of a hazard on a property owner’s premises, the responsibility for employee safety is delegated to the contractor as a matter of law,” California’s Second Appellate District Court ruled in an Oct. 19 decision.
Louis Acosta was working for Horizon Lighting in 2016 when he attempted to climb up to the roof of the Arlington Plaza shopping center to examine some lighting fixtures. When he unlatched a roof hatch he noticed it seemed heavier than usual and as he was climbing through the opening it fell on him, causing ruptured disks it took surgery to repair.
Acosta sued mall owner MAS Realty and Athena Property Management, claiming the 100-pound roof hatch lacked a spring to keep it open and they both knew it since a 2014 inspection revealed the problem.
In a pretrial deposition, Acosta said he used roof hatches frequently and he knew this one had a broken spring because it didn’t lift up when he opened the latch. After conferring with his lawyer, however, Acosta modified his testimony to say he “only noticed that the roof hatch was heavier than expected,” and he “didn’t realize it was broken.” He also said he wished he’d noticed a note saying “HATCH BROKEN! WATCH FINGERS AND HEAD.”
At trial, the defendants argued the missing spring was obvious as soon as Acosta tried to lift the hatch and he proceeded at his own risk. But Los Angeles Judge Mark V. Mooney denied a motion to dismiss, saying that was a “jury call.” The judge also rejected a motion for directed verdict at the end of the trial, saying Acosta “was aware . . . that the latch was difficult to raise. How dangerous was that, I don’t know.”
The jury returned a verdict of $12.6 million, including $266,000 in lost earnings and $8 million in future pain and suffering, assigning 80% of the blame to Athena.
The appeals court reversed, saying that at least since its Privette decision in 1993, the California Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the basic rule that a hirer is typically not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its workers while on the job.” There are two exceptions to this rule, the appeals court said: When the property owner “exercises retained control” over the contractor’s work or when injuries are caused by a concealed hazard. The concealed hazard exception has applied to asbestos cases, but the California Supreme Court rejected it in the case of a window washer who fell off a roof after warning the property owner it was unsafe because it lacked a guard rail.
The rule applies even when the property owner knows of a hazard, the appeals court went on, since it makes little sense to hold property owners liable when they hire a contractor for their expertise. The appeals court rejected Acosta’s argument Horizon wasn’t hired to inspect or work on the hatch, saying that because Acosta had to go through it to get to lighting fixtures on the roof, it was “within Horizon’s duty to inspect.” Whether Horizon itself inspected the hatch is irrelevant, the court went on; the only question is whether the hazard would be revealed by a reasonable inspection.