California Accident Attorneys Blog

In some situations, an employee of a subcontractor on a worksite might be able to file a lawsuit against the employer of another worker who injures them through third-party liability. However, the California Supreme Court has previously held that a company that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable to third parties injured because of the contractor’s negligence while working. In CBRE v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. D083130, the Court of Appeal decided whether a worker who was injured on a worksite could file a lawsuit against the company that hired the general contractor that subcontracted with the worker’s employer when the worker was shocked by a live wire.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jake Johnson was an electrical foreman employed by PCF Electric (PCF). Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI) owned an office building that needed renovations to prepare for a new tenant. PRI signed the lease agreement with the new tenant on April 9, 2019, with the move-in scheduled for June 1. CBRE managed the building owned by PRI. PRI accepted a bid by Crew Builders to serve as the general contractor and perform the upgrades, and Crew hired PCF Electric as a subcontractor to perform the electrical work.

Service companies, such as an HVAC company or roofing company, often complete projects on-site at residential or commercial buildings. The working conditions in different homes can be unknown or hazardous. Technicians receive safety training to prepare for whatever may come their way, but accidents still happen. When a technician gets hurt while performing a service at a home, is the homeowner or the small business owner responsible for the damages?

A recent case out of Los Angeles put a spotlight on this very topic, and it set a precedent for the courts that can inform us of what to expect if we experience a similar incident.

Learn more about who is responsible when a technician is injured at a client’s home.

In California, plaintiffs have the burden of proving all of the elements of negligence when they file personal injury lawsuits. This includes presenting evidence that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting losses. It is often necessary to present expert witness testimony to prove causation. When a defendant objects to a plaintiff’s witness being qualified to testify as an expert, the court must evaluate the witness’s testimony under the substantial factors standard. In Brancati v. Cachuma Village, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B321616, the California Court of Appeal considered whether a trial court erred when it found that a plaintiff’s proposed expert witness was not qualified to testify about causation.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dana Brancati signed a month-to-month apartment lease with Cachuma Village, Inc. in 2012 and continued to live there from April 2012 to April 2016. While she lived there, she complained to her landlord about mold in her apartment and the company’s failure to remediate the issue. In 2016, Insight Environmental assessed Brancati’s apartment and found high levels of several species of toxic mold on her premises. She then filed a lawsuit against Chachuma Village, alleging the company had breached the warranty of habitability, constructively evicted her, caused her personal injuries, and committed fraud. Brancati attributed her respiratory illnesses to the toxic mold and claimed $500,000 in damages.

In California, bars, restaurants, and other establishments that are open to the public owe a duty of care to patrons to keep them reasonably safe and free from danger. This includes a duty to keep customers safe from other, potentially dangerous customers. In

Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge Inc., Ca. Ct. App. Case No. G061255, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the duty a bar owed to a guest who was stabbed to death in a fight an hour after he left the bar when the original fight began inside of the bar.

Factual and Procedural Background