Case Number: BC647845 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: 2

Defendant has established he is entitled to judgment in his favor on the complaint based on the undisputed material facts proffered. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2).

Under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689 “an employee of a contractor [plaintiff] may not sue the hirer of the contractor [Mr. Taylor] under either of the alternative versions of the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in sections 413 and 416.” Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 200-201; Gravelin v. Satterfield (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1214 .

An exception to this general rule states that the hirer remains liable if it retains control of the work and that retention of control affirmatively contributes to Plaintiff’s injuries.

Hooker v. DOT (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198; Tverberg v. Fillner Constr. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1439, 1446. Thus, the rule of non-liability under Privette does not apply where the basis for liability is direct. Hooker v. Department of Transportation at 211–12; Ray v. Silverado Constructors (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1127.

Here, there is no dispute that Defendant did not retain control of the work. Ronald Sanchez and Sanchez Construction managed all the workers. UF 7. Defendant Taylor did not tell Plaintiff what to do. UF 8. Plaintiff placed the ladder where he chose. UF 9. Plaintiff did not communicate with Taylor. UF 14.

Plaintiff alleged that the ladder provided by Defendant Taylor was “inadequate” to tear down the plaster. Complaint, ¶ 19. However, there is no dispute that there was nothing wrong with the ladder. UF 10. The ladder was not shaky, and its height was “ok.” UF 10-12. The accident occurred when Plaintiff was struck by a piece of stucco. UF 13.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.