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: Discussion of Toland

Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where the Toland case is discussed in relation to other cases.

Several cases after Privette extended and elaborated upon its doctrine. In Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th 253, we rejected a hirer’s liability to an independent contractor’s employee under Restatement Second of Torts, section 413.

This provides that a person who hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but who fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that “special precautions” be taken to avert the peculiar risks of that work, could be held liable for the resultant injury.

The plaintiff attempted to distinguish section 413 from section 416 at issue in Privette, which imposes liability for peculiar risks “even though the employer has provided for [special] precautions in the contract or otherwise.”

The plaintiff argued that section 416 imposed vicarious liability whereas in section 413 liability was direct. We disagreed: “[P]eculiar risk liability is not a traditional theory of direct liability for the risks created by one’s own conduct:

Liability under both sections is in essence ‘vicarious’ or ‘derivative’ in the sense that it derives from the ‘act or omission’ of the hired contractor, because it is the hired contractor who has caused the injury by failing to use reasonable care in performing the work.”

Therefore, “contrary to plaintiff Toland’s assertion, our decision in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, bars employees of a hired contractor who are injured by the contractor’s negligence from seeking recovery against the hiring person, irrespective of whether recovery is sought under the theory of peculiar risk set forth in section 416 or section 413 of the Restatement Second of Torts.

In either situation, it would be unfair to impose liability on the hiring person when the liability of the contractor, the one primarily responsible for the worker’s on-the-job injuries, is limited to providing workers’ compensation coverage.”

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


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


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Resource Center
Asbestos
Asbestos Exposure Dangers
Asbestos Lawsuit
Asbestos Litigation
Books and other resources

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

Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette rule Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case where Privette rule is discussed.
Privette rule is reviewed 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