Greg May, over at the California Blog of Appeal, is starting a new series on the reasons why attorneys, and more importantly their clients, are sometimes reluctant to hire appellate counsel. Sure to spark an interesting conversation . . . check it out here.
Yesterday, the First District issued a published opinion in Madden v. Summit View clarifying the state of existing law regarding the Privette/Toland doctrine and the level of affirmative conduct necessary to impose liability on a general contractor for injuries to an employee of an subcontractor.
Bill Staples of Archer Norris represented Summit View, Inc. at the trial court level and successfully argued in favor of summary judgment (against a tentative ruling) that Madden had no claim against Summit View as the general contractor pursuant to the Privette/Toland line of cases.
Madden appealed and we represented respondent Summit View on appeal. Yesterday, the First District issued its decision in the case, affirming summary judgment in favor of our client in full.
The opinion was published and clarifies the state of existing law regarding the Privette/Toland doctrine, and the level of conduct necessary to qualify as affirmative conduct under Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 and Millard v. Biosources, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1338.
The court also held that the decisions in Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915 and Evard v. Southern California Edison (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 137 regarding the admissibility of Cal-OSHA regulations, did not abrogate the Privette/Toland line of decisions, nor did they hold that such regulations expand a general contractor's duty of care to the injured employee of a subcontractor. Instead, the court held that safety regulations are only admissible in actions by employees of subcontractors brought against general contractors where other evidence establishes that the general contractor affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries.
Congratulations to Ric Blumhardt of Archer Norris who is now officially an appellate specialist, certified by the California State Bar.
Ric has been my mentor and teacher for years. Its a highly deserved accreditation and we are all very proud and excited for him as he leads the growth and development of Archer Norris' appellate practice.
Some of his more notable appellate victories include Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 254, Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.App.4th 782, and Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal.App.4th 1120.
Congrats to Ric!
Enter keywords:
