Anderson v. Glaus Pyle Schomer Burns & Dehaven CA3

Filed 11/13/15 Anderson v. Glaus Pyle Schomer Burns & Dehaven CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

CHRIS ANDERSON, C077244

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201100104475CUPOGDS) v.

GLAUS PYLE SCHOMER BURNS & DEHAVEN, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

The question in this case is whether defendant Glaus Pyle Schomer Burns & Dehaven, Inc. (Glaus Pyle) owed a duty of care to plaintiff Chris Anderson, who was injured when conducting a field inspection (site audit) of cell phone transmission equipment. Glaus Pyle is in the telecommunications business and subcontracted with ITC Service Group, Inc., which provided workers to conduct the site audits. Anderson was one of those workers, employed by ITC Service Group. Anderson sued Glaus Pyle, claiming it acted with negligence and gross negligence in connection with his injuries.

1

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Glaus Pyle, reasoning Glaus Pyle owed no duty of care to Anderson because by hiring an independent contractor (ITC Service Group), the hirer (Glaus Pyle) implicitly delegated to the independent contractor any tort law duty it owed to the independent contractor’s employees to ensure workplace safety. We agree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Glaus Pyle is an Ohio-based corporation specializing in, among other things, telecommunication services. Part of Glaus Pyle’s operations includes doing work for AT&T by providing site audits on cell phone transmission equipment owned by AT&T. Because Glaus Pyle did not have enough staff to conduct the site audits, it subcontracted with ITC Service Group, which provided workers to conduct the site audits. Under this contract, employees of ITC Service Group travelled to the locations of the cell phone transmission sites being audited to conduct the site inspections, which included gathering information about the condition of the equipment on site. Data gathered by employees of ITC Service Group was passed on to Glaus Pyle, which in turn processed the data for eventual presentation to AT&T. In May 2009, ITC Service Group hired Anderson as one of its field technicians to conduct these site audits. ITC Service Group assigned Anderson to the sites, and he made his own schedule for the site inspections. When Anderson completed the site inspections, he turned in the data he collected to his supervisor at ITC Service Group. Glaus Pyle was not involved in hiring Anderson and did not receive copies of his timesheets or logs of the tasks he performed. Anderson’s site visits were supervised by ITC Service Group employees. In June 2009, Anderson was injured when conducting a field inspection of cell phone transmission equipment. Anderson’s injury stemmed from exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted from the cell tower. Anderson filed a workers’ compensation