|
4045 REVIEW DENIED The principles established by Privette and its progeny that prevent the hirer of an independent contractor from being vicariously liable to a contractor's employee for the contractor's failure to take adequate safety precautions also prevent the hirer's agent from being so liable; non-delegable duties that might make the hirer of an independent contractor liable for injury sustained by the contractor's employee as a result of unsafe conditions of the premises do not make the hirer's agent liable; an allegation that the injury sustained by an employee of an independent contractor resulted from negligent failure to exercise proper control over safety conditions by an agent of the hirer, rather than from the negligently exercise of control by an affirmative act, is not sufficient to result in liability for an injury sustained by the employee on a job supervised by the hirer's agent.CitationRUIZ v WEISSKER (Hirer's Agent) 130 CA4 52 [See: LabC 6400; CivC 2343; Privette v SuperCt 5 C4 689, T/AT 9/93; Hooker v DOT 27 C4 198, T/AT 3/02; Ray v Silverado 98 CA4 1120, T/AT 7/02; Barclay v Lange 129 CA4 281; T/AT 6/05]
|
|
