HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: Landowner Liability Principles

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

The question before us is how these general principles apply when a landowner hires an independent contractor whose employee is injured by a hazardous condition on the premises. As we have discussed, the hirer generally delegates to the contractor responsibility for supervising the job, including responsibility for looking after employee safety.

When the hirer is also a landowner, part of that delegation includes taking proper precautions to protect against obvious hazards in the workplace. There may be situations, as alluded to immediately above, in which an obvious hazard, for which no warning is necessary, nonetheless gives rise to a duty on a landowner’s part to remedy the hazard because knowledge of the hazard is inadequate to prevent injury.

But that is not this case, since Kinsman acknowledges that reasonable safety precautions against the hazard of asbestos were readily available, such as wearing an inexpensive respirator.

Thus, when there is a known safety hazard on a hirer’s premises that can be addressed through reasonable safety precautions on the part of the independent contractor, a corollary of Privette and its progeny is that the hirer generally delegates the responsibility to take such precautions to the contractor, and is not liable to the contractor’s employee if the contractor fails to do so.

We see no persuasive reason why this principle should not apply when the safety hazard is caused by a preexisting condition on the property, rather than by the method by which the work is conducted.

However, if the hazard is concealed from the contractor, but known to the landowner, the rule must be different. A landowner cannot effectively delegate to the contractor responsibility for the safety of its employees if it fails to disclose critical information needed to fulfill that responsibility, and therefore the landowner would be liable to the contractor’s employee if the employee’s injury is attributable to an undisclosed hazard.

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

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos
Real Stories


Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Resource Center
Asbestos
Asbestos Exposure Dangers
Asbestos Lawsuit
Asbestos Litigation
Books and other resources
IN THIS SECTION
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, undisputed facts
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, disputed facts
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, liability theory
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette case
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette rule
Kinsman asbestos case, Privette discussion
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland discussion
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Camargo case
Kinsman asbestos case; Hooker discussion
Kinsman asbestos case; Caltran argument
Kinsman asbestos case, hire liability
Kinsman asbestos case; delegation
Kinsman asbestos case and Silverado
Kinsman asbestos case and Riverside
Kinsman asbestos case; landowner liability
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; liability
Kinsman asbestos case; landowner liability rules
Kinsman asbestos case, landowner-hirer liability
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Markley case
Kinsman asbestos case
Kinsman asbestos case; Tosco
Kinsman case
Kinsman asbestos case; premises hazards
Kinsman asbestos suit; case application
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland majority
Kinsman asbestos case; premises liability theory
Kinsman asbestos case, latent hazard theories
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland theory
Kinsman asbestos case; premises hazards
Kinsman asbestos case; jury instruction reviewed
Kinsman asbestos case, instructional error
Kinsman asbestos case; oil industry reports
Kinsman disposition
Kinsman asbestos opinion
Kinsman asbestos case; appellant attorneys
Kinsman asbestos case; respondent attorneys

Mesothelioma Lawyer

Asbestos Lawyer

Mesothelioma Attorney

Asbestos Attorney

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Camargo case Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Camargo compared
Camargo reviewed in Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case

Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, undisputed facts Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case where undisputed facts are discussed.
Undisputed facts are mentioned in Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case

CA Supreme Court Asbestos Case: Kinsman v. Unocal California Asbestos Lawsuit: Ray Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation
CA Supreme Court asbestos case: Kinsman v. Unocal in California