Cornerstone Developmet Partners v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Cornerstone Developmet Partners v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 2013 No. E057726Unpublished
Filed 12/31/13 Cornerstone Developmet Partners v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC., E057726 Petitioner, (Super.Ct.No. RIC10024480) v. OPINION THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
DOMINGO ALVAREZ,
Real Party in Interest.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ronald L. Taylor, Judge.
(Retired Judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art.
VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Petition granted.
Diederich & Associates and Richard L. Scott, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
Barnes, FitzGerald, Francisconi & Zeman, Michael J. FitzGerald and Eric P.
Francisconi for Real Party in Interest.
Plaintiff and real party Domingo Alvarez was injured when he fell from a ladder
while performing work on property managed by defendant and petitioner Cornerstone
Development Partners, Inc. (Cornerstone.) At the time, Alvarez was employed by RCA
Construction (RCA), which had been hired by Cornerstone to remove a sign.
Alvarez brought this action for personal injuries against Cornerstone, inter alia.
As Cornerstone was not named in the original complaint, but was added as a Doe (see
Code Civ. Proc., § 474), the pleading is not illuminating as to plaintiff’s theory of relief;
but by the time Cornerstone filed its motion for summary adjudication, plaintiff was
asserting that Cornerstone was liable for his injuries because it had retained control over
the project. Plaintiff also relied on the theory that Cornerstone was liable because it
offered supposedly inadequate payment to RCA, so that the latter could not afford a safer
boom lift.
Cornerstone’s motion for summary judgment was premised on the rule of Privette
v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette), as amplified in Toland v. Sunland
Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253 (Toland), Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001)
25 Cal.4th 1235 (Camargo) and Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27
Cal.4th 198 (Hooker). Cornerstone’s evidence—presented through a declaration by its
property manager, Janet Dunham—showed that Cornerstone managed the property (a
shopping center) under contract with the owners, Encore Plaza, LLC and Bullhead Plaza,
LLC. Dunham had sent a request to RCA for a quote for the work of removing three
2
signs. RCA offered to do the work for a total of $675, which Dunham accepted.
Dunham also stated that RCA provided all personnel, supplies, and tools, and that
Cornerstone did not “oversee, instruct, supervise or control any of the workers . . . .” The
actual contract documents are informal and brief, and do not refer to the operative
mechanics of performance.
Pertinent to this case,1 plaintiff argued that because Cornerstone’s contract with
the property owners required it to “monitor[] . . . independent contractors responsible for
the repair and maintenance of Property,” Cornerstone could be liable under the “retained
control” rule, which we discuss infra. He also argued that Cornerstone should have
provided roof access so the contractor’s ladder could have been better secured; that
Cornerstone breached its duty to keep the premises “clean, attractive, and safe”; and, as
noted above, that it failed to make “adequate payment” to RCA. In supplemental filings,
plaintiff further argued that Cornerstone acted tortiously in not hiring a “dedicated and
licensed sign company” but instead hired a company (RCA) that was allegedly “not
properly equipped to perform the work.” Plaintiff proffered evidence to the effect that a
“qualified” company in possession of a crane or safety lift would have charged at least
$1,200 for the work that RCA was to have done.2
1 Plaintiff also sought additional time in which to conduct discovery, but the trial court granted this request, and this is now moot.
2 We accept the validity of the evidence without question, because it is in the final analysis irrelevant.
3
The trial court denied Cornerstone’s motion for summary judgment, signing an
order drafted by plaintiff’s counsel and finding triable issues concerning failure to make
adequate payment and hire a qualified contractor, breach of its supposed duty to monitor,
and breach of its equally supposed duty to maintain safe premises. Cornerstone filed this
petition, authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (m)(1).
DISCUSSION
The standards governing motions for summary judgment and appellate review of
rulings on such motions are well established and need not be discussed in detail. The
party moving for summary judgment (here, Cornerstone) bears the initial burden of
demonstrating that there are no triable issues of material fact. If this showing is
sufficient, the burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must make a prima facie
showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Y.K.A. Industries, Inc. v.
Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 339, 353.) Our
review involves a determination of legal issues and is therefore de novo. (Chavez v.
Carpenter (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1448.)
We conclude that Cornerstone did carry its initial burden and that plaintiff failed
to present evidence that would create a triable issue of any material fact.
The issue of a landowner’s (or manager’s)3 liability for injury to the employee of
an independent contractor working on the property bedeviled lower courts and attorneys
3 We will generally use the term “owner” to describe the defendant in the various cases, recognizing that Cornerstone’s actual role is slightly different. It is, however, a “hirer” as that term is sometimes alternatively used in the cases.
4
for years through the “peculiar risk” doctrine, until the Supreme Court undertook to limit
and clarify the circumstances under which such liability existed in Privette, supra,
5 Cal.4th 689. The court noted that the common law rule of nonliability for injury to the
employee of an independent contractor had become riddled with exceptions, the most
significant of which was the “peculiar risk” rule. This judicially created doctrine
imposed liability on the property owner if the work to be done posed some inherent risk
of injury. Although the rule was originally intended to protect neighbors and bystanders,
it was later expanded to cover employees of an independent contractor performing work
on the property. (Id. at pp. 693-696.)
However, in California employees are covered by a no-fault system of workers’
compensation, which, except in unusual circumstances, is the employee’s only remedy
against the employer. (Lab. Code, § 3602; Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 697.) A
corollary to this rule is that if a third party contributes to the injury, the employer’s
obligations have been discharged by payment of benefits to the employee and the third
party cannot make a claim for equitable indemnity. (Lab. Code, § 3864.) The result,
according to the Privette court, was that in a case of serious injury, the owner, who might
not have been negligent at all, would wind up paying a disproportionately large amount
of damages while the directly negligent employer would pay only the relatively modest
4 The court also pointed to two other undesirable effects of allowing “peculiar risk” recovery against the property owner: allowing employees of independent contractors—and no other employees—in essence to recover for employer negligence; [footnote continued on next page]
5
Privette goes on to hold that the employee of an independent contractor cannot
recover from the property owner who does not cause the injuries, thus largely abolishing
the “peculiar risk” doctrine in this context. (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, 702.)
In Toland, the court made clear that the rule of Privette applies to attempts to fix
liability under either section 413 or section 416 of the Restatement Second of Torts.5
(Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th 253, 270.) And in Camargo, the court ruled that the employee
could not circumvent Privette/Toland by framing his complaint against the owner under a
tort theory of “negligent hiring.” (Camargo, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238.) This result
stemmed again from the Supreme Court’s characterization of the owner’s negligence as
“‘in essence “vicarious” or “derivative”’” because it was still the contractor’s acts or
omissions that directly caused the injury. (Id. at p. 1244.) Finally, in Hooker, the court
explained that although the property owner might be liable to the employee where the
owner had retained control over the manner in which the contractor performed the work,
such liability would be limited to situations in which the owner actually exercised the
right of control and this exercise contributed to the injury. (Hooker, supra, 27 Cal.4th
[footnote continued from previous page] and, penalizing property owners who act responsibly by hiring an expert to perform dangerous work rather than attempting to do it personally or through untrained employees of the owner.
5 Section 413 describes the “peculiar risk” situation in which the owner fails to provide that safety precautions be taken to avert the risk; section 416 applies when the contract requires that special precautions be taken but the contractor fails to do so. The problem dealt with in Toland arose because section 416 liability had sometimes been described as “vicarious” and section 413 liability as “direct” (because there was an affirmative failure by the owner). The argument was therefore made that Privette only applied to “vicarious” section 416 liability. Toland rejected this claim.
6
198, 202.) Under the most recent pronouncement from the Supreme Court, it is clear that
any duty (such as that arising from general safety laws or regulations) that the owner may
owe to the employees of a contractor may be, and implicitly is, delegated to the
contractor performing work. (Seabright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th
590, 603 (Seabright Ins. Co.).)
Finally, although these cases are founded on the fact that an employee may seek
benefits under workers’ compensation, it does not matter if, in a specific case (as plaintiff
asserts here) the employer does not have workers’ compensation insurance. (Lopez v.
C.G.M. Development, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 430, 445 (Lopez).) This is for two
reasons: the employee of an uninsured contractor may enforce any claim for benefits
against the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (Lab. Code, § 3716); and, the
owner owes no duty to the employee to make sure that the contractor/employee carries
the required insurance. (Lopez, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 430, 445.)
With this legal framework firmly established, we turn to plaintiff’s efforts to
dismantle it.6
Plaintiff first argues that there is a triable issue as to whether RCA was a qualified
contractor and whether Cornerstone made “adequate payment.” We need not deal in
6 We find no need to address some of plaintiff’s points in detail. To the extent that plaintiff asserts (in part correctly) that Cornerstone argues facts not contained in the record (such as that he “lost his balance” and fell), under our analysis Cornerstone needs no facts other than those we have recited, which are in the record. The mechanics of plaintiff’s fall are simply irrelevant. Of course, if plaintiff had responded with any evidence that his fall was due to Cornerstone’s direct affirmative negligence, that would be different, but he did not.
7
detail with the supposed triable issues on this point,7 because the first prong of this
argument is answered by Camargo, as discussed above: plaintiff cannot rely on any
theory that the owner negligently selected an incompetent contractor.
The theory that an owner may be directly liable because the contract price does not
enable the contractor to take safety measures that the plaintiff deems necessary is novel,
to say the least—so novel that we can find no existing authority to refute it. We can only
explain that just as it is the contractor’s duty to ensure the safety of its workers, so only
the contractor could have any liability for not demanding a contract price that would
enable it to do so. (See also Gravelin v. Satterfield (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1217
(Gravelin) [no owner liability for fall from roof where it was contractor’s “poor choice”
to use a short ladder and inappropriate access point which caused danger].)8 The
Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that plaintiff’s assertion that “RCA is not to
blame because it did not choose to use a scissor lift to complete the sign removal” is
7 For example, plaintiff argues that Cornerstone either knew or should have known that RCA did not possess the “scissor lift” that he claims would have allowed him to do the work safely. But any such claim imposes a burden on the owner, which is flatly, and repeatedly, rejected by the Supreme Court cases we have cited.
8 Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Gravelin on the basis that the contractor in that case had a choice of how to proceed, whereas RCA did not due to the “inadequate” contract price. For the reasons stated in the body of this opinion, we also reject any such distinction.
8
untenable; if there is any blame, it must be placed upon RCA. Camargo is not
distinguishable and Cornerstone committed no “direct” negligence.9
Plaintiff then attempts to bring the “retained control” exception into play by
relying on Cornerstone’s duty to the owners of the property to “monitor” independent
contractors. (He wisely does not contend that the contract with RCA gives Cornerstone
any such power.) It does not. Aside from the fact that “monitor” suggests watchfulness
rather than active engagement, plaintiff strenuously claims that Cornerstone grossly
breached this duty in that Cornerstone affirmatively contends that it did not “oversee,
instruct, supervise or control any of the workers for RCA.” It is hard to imagine an
argument which goes farther from the point. Any duty to “monitor” the work was owed
to the owner, not to plaintiff. The management agreement is utterly devoid of any
language that would suggest an intent to benefit employees of independent contractors.
(See generally 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 685 ff.,
pp. 771 ff.) Furthermore, it is virtually nonsensical to suppose that the owner would have
wished to impose upon Cornerstone a duty to exercise active control over repair projects
that would lead to potential tort liability for the owner if that control were to be
negligently exercised. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we simply decline
9 We also note that the evidence shows that RCA calculated the bid proposal price on its own; Cornerstone’s solicitation of a proposal did not contain a suggested price.
9
to view any such interpretation of the management contract as viable. The management
agreement imposed no duty on Cornerstone running to plaintiff.10
Equally unavailing is plaintiff’s reliance on the claim that Cornerstone breached
its duty to provide a “clean, attractive, and safe environment” at the shopping center.
Without extended discussion, we will agree that Cornerstone may have owed some duty
to tenants and customers to keep the premises safe. (“Clean and attractive,” not so much;
any such duty presumably ran to the owners, although tenants might colorably claim to
be third-party beneficiaries.) But there was nothing inherently unsafe about the premises,
only the manner in which work was performed on them.11 (See Gravelin, supra, 200
Cal.App.4th 1209, 1217.) Furthermore, while Cornerstone might conceivably be liable to
10 Plaintiff argues that Cornerstone “admits” that it had the ability to “monitor” the work, but “chose not to.” So? As we have discussed above, Hooker, supra, 27 Cal.4th 198 holds that the owner is only liable if there is retained control and a negligent exercise of that control. That is, there is no liability for choosing not to exercise the right. Plaintiff’s attempt to rely on Ray v. Silverado Constructors (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1120 (Ray) in this context is misplaced. In Ray, an employee of a contractor was killed while attempting to remove debris on a highway project. Plaintiff’s theory was that the road leading to the project should have been closed due to danger, which would have prevented his access to the fatal site. (Id.) However, the employer/subcontractor had no authority to close the road, while the owner did have such control and failed to effect the closure. In finding potential liability on the owner, Ray distinguished Hooker on the basis the employer in Ray was contractually prohibited from taking the necessary safety measures that remained in the owner’s power. In this case, RCA was in no way prohibited from taking safety measures or using safe equipment, as we have explained. Ray does not apply.
11 Plaintiff insists that the premises were somehow unsafe because there is a slope to the ground at the base of the subject building where the sign was. We reiterate that this condition is not inherently unsafe, but becomes so (as was the case in Gravelin) only if inappropriate ladders or other devices are used to obtain access to the sign itself.
10
a patron who tripped over a tree root, any duty to plaintiff as a visitor was legally
delegated to his employer. (See Seabright Ins. Co., supra, 52 Cal.4th 590, 603.)
In summary, the “triable issues” specified by the trial court were legally
meaningless, and so are any additional points raised by plaintiff before this court.
Cornerstone established that it hired a licensed contractor and that it took no role
whatsoever in the performance of the work. Nor, in any legally cognizable sense, did it
interfere with the contractor’s ability to perform the work safely. It breached no duty
owed to plaintiff and was entitled to summary judgment.
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside
County to vacate its order denying Cornerstone’s motion for summary judgment, and to
enter a new order granting said motion.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued,
copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of
service on all parties. Petitioner to recover its costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a property manager is not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor's employee under the Privette doctrine, as the manager did not exercise retained control and owed no duty to the employee regarding the contractor's safety measures or equipment.
Issues
Whether a property manager is liable for an independent contractor's employee's injuries under a theory of negligent hiring or inadequate payment.
Whether a property manager's contractual duty to 'monitor' contractors creates a duty of care toward the contractor's employees under the 'retained control' doctrine.
Whether a property manager is liable for premises liability when the injury resulted from the manner in which work was performed rather than an inherently unsafe condition.
Disposition. remanded
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Cornerstone established that it hired a licensed contractor and that it took no role whatsoever in the performance of the work.”
“Any duty to “monitor” the work was owed to the owner, not to plaintiff.”