Property Management Company Not Liable for Injuries to Contractor's Employee

​An electrical technician was injured when a broken hatch providing access to the roof of a commercial building in Riverside, Calif., slammed shut on his back, herniating several of his discs. He sued the building's owner and management company, contending that the defendants had failed either to repair a dangerous condition of which they were aware or to warn him of it. A jury awarded the worker more than $12.6 million in damages. The defendants appealed.

A California appellate court recently reversed the award of damages, holding that under California's Privette doctrine, named after a 1993 California Supreme Court case, a property owner who hires an independent contractor may be liable to the contractor's employee for injuries sustained on the job only if the owner exercises control over any part of the contractor's work in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the worker's injuries, or the employee was injured by a concealed hazard that was unknown to and not reasonably ascertainable by the contractor.

In this case, the court said, the injured worker did not claim that the defendants exercised any control over the worksite, and the undisputed evidence established that the worker and his employer could reasonably have ascertained the hazardous condition of the site—i.e., that the mechanism designed to hold the roof hatch open was broken, and the ladder that provided access to the hatch did not reach all the way to the roof.

Building Defects Should Have Been Known to Contractor

In 2014, the property owner hired a management company to manage one of its commercial properties, a shopping center, which consisted of several buildings.

The plaintiff, an electrical technician, began working for a lighting company in 2015. The lighting company had contracted with the management company to maintain the lights in the shopping center's common areas, including the exterior and parking lot lights.

On Aug. 10, 2016, the technician decided to go onto the roof of one of the buildings to inspect the rooftop photocells. He began to climb a ladder leading to the roof access. As he got near the top, he held onto the top rung of the ladder with one hand and unlatched the hatch with his other hand.

After doing so, he realized that the ladder did not reach all the way to the roof. He climbed one more step, fully opened the hatch, and locked it into place. He then climbed to the top of the ladder, grabbed the frame of the hatch, and swung one leg over the frame. As he pulled his other leg over the frame, the hatch released and fell on him, pinning him between the hatch and the frame. He felt a numbing sensation on the right side of his body and almost fell to the ground. He was able to maintain his grip, pushed the door back open, and pulled himself onto the rooftop.

Although the technician was able to continue working immediately after the accident, he felt worse as the day progressed and sought medical care. Eventually, he was diagnosed with ruptured discs in his cervical and lumbar spine. He experienced pain, numbness and weakness in his neck, back, shoulders and legs, and ultimately underwent two spinal surgeries. He had been unable to work regularly since the accident.

In August 2018, the worker filed a lawsuit against the property owner and the management company.

A safety engineering expert testified that the accident occurred because the compression cylinder designed to keep the roof hatch open was broken. The safety expert said a secondary cause of the accident was that the top rung of the ladder in the electrical room was about 30 inches below the roof hatch. The short ladder contributed to the accident because the worker could not step from the top rung onto the roof but had to lift his leg up and over the hatch, increasing the probability of coming into contact with the locking mechanism.

The jury ruled for the technician and awarded more than $12.6 million in damages. The appeals court reversed, based on the Privette doctrine. Under this doctrine, the basic rule is that a general contractor who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries sustained on the job by employees of the independent contractor.

In this case, the owner and property manager could be liable only if the employee was injured by a concealed hazard that was unknown and not reasonably ascertainable by the lighting contractor.

Therefore, the court said, the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence because the hazardous condition of the roof hatch and ladder were not concealed. The hazardous condition of the ladder—that it did not reach all the way to the roof—was obvious, and the fact that the roof hatch was faulty would have been readily apparent upon inspection.

The worker's employer, an independent contractor hired by the defendants, had a duty to ensure a safe workplace for its employees and is deemed to have been aware of any hazards that a reasonable inspection of the workplace would have revealed, the court noted.

Acosta v. MAS Realty LLC, Calif. Ct. App., No. B316420 (Oct. 19, 2023).

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.