Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: Discussion on the Privette Doctrine and Hire Liability

Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where the Privette rule with respect to hire liability is discussed.

At the same time, consistent with Privette’s rule against vicarious hirer liability, we concluded that “it would be unfair to impose tort liability on the hirer of the contractor merely because the hirer retained the ability to exercise control over safety at the work site.

In fairness, the imposition of tort liability on a hirer should depend on whether the hirer exercised the control that was retained in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the injury of the contractor’s employee.”

We elaborated that “[s]uch affirmative contribution need not always be in the form of actively directing a contractor or contractor’s employee. There will be times when a hirer will be liable for its omissions.

Accordingly, in Hooker, we concluded summary judgment was appropriate because Caltrans had not exercised its retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injury.

On the other hand, in the companion case, McKown, supra, 27 Cal.4th 219, we upheld a jury verdict for an injured employee against the hirer of the contractor, because the hirer had furnished the employee with a defective forklift that had contributed to his injury.

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