|
4294 A person hired to repair a homeowner's roof but who lacked the legally required license is presumed to be the homeowner's employee; if he was not so employed for 52 hours or more during the ninety days immediately preceding an injury he sustained while working on the roof, he was not an employee for workers' compensation purposes, and since he was excluded from workers' compensation coverage he is entitled to sue the homeowner in tort.CitationMENDOZA v BRODEUR (Unlicensed Roofer) 142 CA4 72 [See: LabC 2750.5, 3351,3352, 3706; InsC 11590; Cedillo v WCAB 106 CA4 227, T/AT 3/03; Rosas v Dishong 67 CA4 815, T/AT 12/98]
|
|
