Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: Discussion of the Caltran argument
Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where the Privette case is discussed in relation to the Caltran argument.
We rejected Caltrans’s categorical argument that we should, for public policy reasons, disallow any recovery by a contractor’s employee, even when the hirer retains control over safety conditions.
In arriving at this conclusion, we recalled the rationale of Privette that “ ‘[a]t common law, a person who hired an independent contractor generally was not liable to third parties for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence in performing the work.
Central to this rule of non-liability was the recognition that a person who hired an independent contractor had “ ‘no right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for.’ ” . . .’
On the other hand, if a hirer does retain control over safety conditions at a worksite and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to an employee’s injuries, it is only fair to impose liability on the hirer.”
Other helpful links:
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney