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 and Premises Hazards

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

But Grahn’s statement regarding the hirer’s nonliability for hazards on the premises related to “the object of the work of the independent contractor” (Grahn, supra, 58 Cal.app.4th at p. 1398) does point to an important limitation on a landowner’s duty toward the contractor’s employees.

A landowner’s duty generally includes a duty to inspect for concealed hazards. But the responsibility for job safety delegated to independent contractors may and generally does include explicitly or implicitly a limited duty to inspect the premises as well.

Therefore, the principles enunciated in Privette suggest that the landowner would not be liable when the contractor has failed to engage in inspections of the premises implicitly or explicitly delegated to it.

Thus, for example, an employee of a roofing contractor sent to repair a defective roof would generally not be able to sue the hirer if injured when he fell through the same roof due to a structural defect, inasmuch as inspection for such defects could reasonably be implied to be within the scope of the contractor’s employment.

On the other hand, if the same employee fell from a ladder because the wall on which the ladder was propped collapsed, assuming that this defect was not related to the roof under repair, the employee may be able to sustain a suit against the hirer.

Put in other terms, the contractor was not being paid to inspect the premises generally, and therefore the duty of general inspection could not be said to have been delegated to it. Under those circumstances, the landowner’s failure to reasonably inspect the premises, when a hidden hazard leads directly to the employee’s injury, may well result in liability.

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 asbestos case and Riverside Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where Riverside is cited
Austin v. Riverside case discussed in Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case.

Kinsman asbestos case; landowner liability Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; landowner liability is considered
Landowner liability is discussed 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