In Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., Plaintiff Sandoval sued Defendant Qualcomm after he received severe burns during an inspection of parts of Qualcomm's electrical system.
Qualcomm had hired a subcontractor to perform the inspection. The subcontractor had hired Plaintiff Sandoval to assist with the inspection.
Qualcomm confirmed with subcontractor employees which parts of the system were shutdown and safe to inspect; other parts were still powered and covered. During the inspection, a subcontractor employee exposed a live circuit; Sandoval approached near the live circuit and his tape measure triggered an arc flash.
Under the Workers Compensation Act, Sandoval was entitled to payment from his direct employer for his injuries, but he is prohibited from suing his employer for damages in civil litigation (which can result in much higher payments).
Because employees claims against their employers are limited, injured employees may attempt to sue others they believe are responsible to obtain additional payments or damages. In general, plaintiffs' counsel will sue as many potentially responsible defendants in order to increase the likelihood collecting through settlements or prevailing at trial. Even a claim of limited merit will typically induce defendants to offer a settlement to avoid litigation expenses.
Here, Sandoval sued Qualcomm and others. In general, everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their own negligence (i.e., failure to exercise reasonable care). But the California Supreme Court's "Privette doctrine" holds that, in general, by hiring an independent contractor, a person "delegates to the contractor the responsibility to do the work safely" and is not responsible for injuries to the contractor's employees. This is because the worker is already assured compensation under the Workers Compensation Act (which the hirer has indirectly paid for through the contract price) and the contractor is in the best position to ensure work is performed safely. However, a hirer can be liable under certain conditions.
Over the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has been refining the grounds upon which a hirer can be liable to a contractor's employee. A hirer is not liable for failing to require the contractor to take precautions, for negligently hiring an incompetent contractor, or other failings that are essentially attempts to make the hirer liable for the contractor's negligence. A hirer may be liable if they fail to disclose concealed hazards the hirer should have known about, or where the hirer actually retains control over part of the work and affirmatively contributes to the worker's injury. For example, by requiring the contractor to use defective equipment.
In Sandoval, Qualcomm did disclose hazards to the contractor and did not retain control over the work.
In order to be liable, Qualcomm was required to have “actually exercised” its retained control over the contracted “such that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in the contractor’s own manner” and that it was this conduct that "affirmatively contributed" to the injury--not just failed to prevent the injury.
The strongest argument from Plaintiff Sandoval was that Qualcomm was in control of whether to turn off power and, in essence, required the contractor to work in the presence of dangerous live circuits (similar to asking a contractor to use defective equipment), but the Supreme Court found that the risks were disclosed, there was sufficient means for the contractor to safely perform the work, and the more immediate risk was created when the contractor removed a panel that exposed the live circuit.
I wonder if the result would change if the contractor had requested the hirer take some action (e.g., request that power to be turned off for safety), but the hirer refused and asked the hirer to perform the work anyway. At some point the level of danger created by the surrounding conditions could get so high that it becomes reckless to hire a company to encounter it.
No comments:
Post a Comment