Defendants Eran Yaniv and Sharan Yaniv (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the first and second causes of action in the Complaint filed by plaintiff Dejan Ladic (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that the causes of action are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty is OVERRULED. A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 616.) The Complaint is not so unclear that Defendants cannot respond.

The facts of this case involve a construction accident that occurred at Defendants’ house. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) Defendants employed John Kusalo, an independent contractor, to perform renovation work at the house. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) On December 22, 2011, Kusalo and his crew had started to cover the roof of the house and Kusalo insisted on removing plywood from the second floor. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) The plywood was used by the construction crew for walking spreading the weight on all the 2x4s. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) When Kusalo started to remove the plywood, he was told by Plaintiff not to remove it, but he insisted on removing the plywood. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Later, Plaintiff was standing on a 2×4 on the second floor when it broke under his weight. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff was injured. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 7.)

The first cause of action is for negligence. The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 604, 614.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing they owed a duty of care to Plaintiff. Defendants correctly point out that there are no facts alleged as to who Plaintiff is and why he is located at the house. There are no facts showing Plaintiff’s relationship to Defendants or to Kusalo from which it can be determined whether Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty.

Plaintiff states in his opposition papers that he alleged at paragraphs five and six that he was part of the renovation crew working with Kusalo. Paragraphs five and six of the Complaint do not state that Plaintiff was part of the crew; they simply state that Plaintiff was there. Even if Plaintiff had alleged he was part of the construction crew, however, that would not impose a duty on Defendants.

Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work. . . . By hiring an independent contractor, the hirer implicitly delegates to the contractor any tort law duty it owes to the contractor’s employees to ensure the safety of the specific workplace that is the subject of the contract.

(SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal. 4th 590, 594, emphasis in original, citation omitted.)

In sum, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants owed him a duty of care. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

The arguments of the parties with regard to the second cause of action (premises liability) are essentially the same as those made in connection with the first cause of action. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.