 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Voigts v. Brutoco Engineering & Construction Co.9/16/1996
California Court of Appeals
No. G015462
49 Cal.App.4th 354, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 1996.ca.2
September 16, 1996
SCOTT VOIGTS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
BRUTOCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Super. Ct. No. 686296. Hon. William R. Froeberg, Judge.
Review Granted December 11, 1996 (S056914).
Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette and Jefferson, Russell E. Nordstrom and Charlotte E. Costan for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Morgan & Wenzel, Patrick C. Quinlivan and John C. Manly for Defendant and Respondent.
Luna, Brownwood & Rice, James P. Zurawski, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, David A. Niddrie and Gerald P. Kennedy as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Sills, P.j.; Crosby, J. and Rylaarsdam, J., Concurring.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sills
SILLS, P.J.:
I. INTRODUCTION
The question of whether, after Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, 854 P.2d 721, a subcontractor's employee can have a cause of action for direct liability against a general contractor or developer is now before the California Supreme Court. The case before us here forces us to confront the boundaries of the Privette decision in the narrow situation where a subcontractor's employee is injured by a hazard created solely by the subcontractor. In such a case, as we explain below, Privette requires that the general contractor should not incur tort liability to the subcontractor's employee. As in Privette itself, tort liability advances "no societal interest that is not already served by the workers' compensation system." ( Id. at p. 692.)
II. FACTS
On October 25, 1991, Scott Voigts was severely injured when he fell 12 feet from unsafe scaffolding during the construction of a bridge road over a creek. The scaffolding was built by his employer, a subcontractor, Miguel Construction, which had undertaken to erect a concrete abutment wall on the project for Brutoco Engineering and Construction, the general contractor. The scaffolding was too narrow and lacked safety rails. After the accident, the subcontractor was cited by CAL-OSHA for violating California regulations regarding scaffold construction.
Voigts obtained workers' compensation benefits for his injuries and sued the general contractor on the project for having failed to provide him with a safe workplace. The contract between Brutoco and Miguel provided that Brutoco was to have "complete control of the premises on which the work to be performed" as well as "all matters representing the timely and orderly conduct of the work of Subcontractor on the premises."
In November 1993 Brutoco requested summary judgment based on the recent Privette decision. In addition to the facts already mentioned, the opposition papers established that Brutoco kept a superintendent on duty at the work site who took a job tour at least once a day, whose inspections would include looking at any scaffolding or other "apparatuses" being used, and who was aware of normal safety rules for scaffolds, including the need for safety railing. The opposition papers also presented some evidence that the scaffolding might have been built "a couple, maybe three days" prior to the accident. From this evidence we draw the i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|