 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Padilla v. Turner Construction Co. v. Turner Construction Co.10/31/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Miguel Padilla, an employee of an independent contractor, sued general contractor Turner Construction Company (Turner) in a personal injury action for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The trial court granted Turner's motion for summary judgment. We conclude that Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette) and its progeny bars Padilla's recovery. Notwithstanding Padilla's characterization of disputed material facts, a thorough review of the record reveals that much of Padilla's evidence does not pertain to the facts, which it purports to address. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Padilla was employed as a cement mixer laborer by subcontractor Wagner Construction (Wagner) when he sustained cement burns to his left foot. Turner was the general contractor at the job site for the 560 Mission Street project. Wagner's primary job on this project was to build the foundations, work which was generally described as "Soil Mix Shoring." Wagner supplied its own drilling equipment. Wagner's scope of work included furnishing "all engineering, submittals, shop drawings, labor, materials, apparatus, tools, equipment, transportation, temporary construction, and special services as required for the Soil Mixing Shoring Work . . . ." Under the subheading "Accident Prevention," article XXII of the subcontract provides: "The Subcontractor agrees that the prevention of accidents to workmen engaged upon or in the vicinity of the Work is its responsibility. The Subcontractor agrees to comply with all Federal, State, Municipal and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, codes, standards, orders, notices and requirements concerning safety as shall be applicable to the Work . . . ."
Padilla reported directly to Roland Mayes, the foreman who was running the job for Wagner. Roland Mayes directed Padilla on how to go about doing his job. Turner's on-site person did not tell Padilla how to do his work. Padilla did not have any conversations with the person in charge for Turner during the nine to 10 days he was on the job.
On the day of the accident, Padilla was working on the foundation of the building. He was "chuck-tending" or putting the steel into the machine so they could keep drilling. Padilla knew how to do his job , and needed no instruction. Whatever tools he had were his own. It was raining quite heavily on the day of the accident. Padilla alleges that due to lack of proper rain gear, he sustained cement burns on his left foot.
At his deposition, Padilla testified he did not know if it was Turner's or Wagner's responsibility to provide rain gear at the Mission Street project, but on other jobs his own employer would supply such gear. Padilla was wearing his own rubber boots and overalls at the time of the accident. The rubber boots came up to his knees. Padilla asked Roland Mayes for rain gear on the first day of the job , but never got it during the nine days he was on the job. Padilla testified that he asked Roland Mayes for rain gear almost every day.
On January 9, 2001, Padilla was working in mud up to his knees. Padilla was allegedly injured when cement mixed with mud got inside his boot and he felt something burning. Appellant was allegedly hurt by being exposed to the concrete that went inside his boot.
Padilla brought this act
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|