First District Clarifies Affirmative Conduct Under Privette/Toland
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.
