Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

March 30, 2026 Issue  By: Ray Coates

Torts - Privette Doctrine Applies To Hirers of an Injured Independent Contractor

Michael v. Denbeste Transportation, Inc.

 (March 23, 2026)

Court of Appeal, Second District

The California Supreme Court, beginning with the case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal 4th 689, has defined the circumstances under which an injured worker who is an employee of an independent contractor may sue the hirer of the contractor. This case addresses whether the Privette doctrine applies where the injured worker is an independent contractor, not an employee.

Filtrol Corporation owned property that contained an old plant. Filtrol hired general contractor Aman Environmental Construction, Inc. (Aman) to decontaminate and improve the property.  Filtrol also hired Secor International, Inc. (Secor) as an oversight contractor. Amin then hired Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) to provide transportation and disposal of waste materials from the site. CWM, in turn, hired Denbeste Transportation (Denbeste) to assist with transportation. Denbeste then entered into a sub-haul agreement with Plaintiff David Michael, a sole proprietor, under which Michael provided his own tractor-truck to pull a Denbeste-owned trailer. The sub-haul agreement characterized Michael as an independent contractor. It also required that Michael maintain liability and workers’ compensation insurance. The agreement also set forth that waste materials were to be tarped after they were loaded.

Michael was seriously injured on the Filtrol property when he fell from a loaded trailer, while attempting without any fall protection to install a manual roll tarp over the trailer. Michael filed suit against Aman, CWM, Secor, and Dembeste in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that they had no duty to Michael as a matter of law under Privette. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Michael then appealed from the summary judgment. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of Aman, CWM, and Secor, but reversed as to Denbeste.

On appeal, Michael contended that if he was an independent contractor and not Denbeste’s employee, Aman and CWM owed him a duty of care. Michael argued that the holdings of Privette and its progeny do not apply if the injured worker is an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

Beginning with Privette, the California Supreme Court has considered the circumstances under which an employee of an independent contractor has a claim against the hirer of the contractor under tort theories such as peculiar risk of harm and negligent hiring. At common law, it was regarded as the norm that when a hirer delegated a task to an independent contractor, it delegated responsibility and potential liability for performing that task. Prior to Privette, courts limited a hirer’s ability to delegate responsibility and escape liability. In Privette, the Supreme Court began holding that hirers could delegate the duty to provide contractor employees with a safe working environment.  Under the Privette doctrine, hirers have no such duty unless they participate in how the work is to be done and that participation contributes to the employee’s injury. One of the underlying reasons for permitting hirers to transfer liability to contractors is the availability of workers’ compensation insurance for contractor employees.

The Court of Appeal held that Michael’s status as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee of Denbeste, was immaterial. Michael had the right to control the means and methods of his work. He also had the opportunity to obtain liability and workers compensation insurance. Therefore, the Court held that the Privette doctrine applies to an injured independent contractor.

The Court of Appeal further held that Aman, Secor and CWM had no duty under Privette. These Defendants did not retain control of Michael’s work in a way that contributed to the accident. The Court affirmed summary judgment as to these Defendants. With regard to Denbeste, the Court held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Michael was Denbeste’s employee. Summary judgment was reversed as to Denbeste.

COMMENT

In this case of first impression, the Second District Court of Appeal has extended the Privette doctrine to cases where the injured plaintiff is a not an employee of a contractor, but is an independent contractor. The Privette doctrine continues to provide a viable defense for hirers in construction site injury cases.

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.