|
3733 In the absence of evidence that a general contractor retained or exercised control over the jobsite in a way that contributed to an injury sustained by an employee of a subcontractor, the employee may not maintain an action against the general contractor; the non-delegable duty theory of premises liability is a form of vicarious liability, so the employee of a subcontractor can not rely on it in an action against the general contractor.CitationSHEELER v GREYSTONE (Unidentified Sweeper) 113 CA4 908 [See: http://www.advancetapes.com/citations/privette.html; Privette v Superior Court 5 C4 689; T/AT 9/93; Hooker v DOT 27 C4 198 T/AT 3/02; Srithong v Total Investment 23 CA4 721, T/AT 4/94]
|
|
