Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: Landowner Liability Rules

Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where landowner liability rules are discussed.

The usual rules about landowner liability must be modified, after Privette, as they apply to a hirer’s duty to the employees of independent contractors. As noted, the Restatement Second of Torts, section 343, states that the landowner’s duty is triggered when it: “(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and, (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it.”

In light of the delegation doctrine reaffirmed by Privette, the italicized phrase does not seem applicable to landowner liability for injuries to employees of independent contractors.

Because the landowner/hirer delegates the responsibility of employee safety to the contractor, the teaching of the Privette line of cases is that a hirer has no duty to act to protect the employee when the contractor fails in that task and therefore no liability; such liability would essentially be derivative and vicarious.

But when the landowner knows or should know of a concealed hazard on its premises, then under ordinary premises liability principles, the landowner may be liable for a resultant injury to those employees.

Courtesy of http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S118561.PDF

Other helpful links:

Asbestos Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney