This case discussed whether the Privette doctrine applies where the injured plaintiff is not an employee, but an independent contractor, of that contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of those who hired the contractor as well as the contractor itself.
The appellate court concluded that the Privette doctrine applied. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of those who hired the contractor, holding that they owed no duty to plaintiff as a matter of law under the Privette doctrine. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the court concluded that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment in the contractor's favor because of triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was the contractor’s employee or an independent contractor.
Comment Preview