Torts/Personal Injury,
Labor/Employment
Feb. 14, 2025
Why hirers can't escape liability under the Privette doctrine
The Privette doctrine limits hirer liability for contractor employee injuries, but the Kinsman exception holds hirers accountable if they knew or should have known of a concealed hazard, as seen in Blaylock v. DMP 260 Newport Center.
Garret D. Murai
Partner, Nomos LLP
Garret is the editor of the California Construction Law Blog at www.calconstructionlawblog.com.
The Privette doctrine, named after the seminal California Supreme Court case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor's employees gets injured while working on t...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In