This article provides general legal information for educational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney in your state for guidance specific to your situation.
The Privette doctrine presumes that a party hiring an independent contractor hands off responsibility for worker safety to that contractor. Whether one of its exceptions applies usually decides the case.
What the Privette doctrine says
Under Privette v. Superior Court (1993), a person or company that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to the contractor's employees. The hirer is presumed to have delegated all responsibility for the workers' safety to the contractor.
Why the doctrine exists
The California Supreme Court reasoned that hirers engage contractors precisely because the contractor has the expertise to perform the work safely, and that society needs clear rules about who is responsible for worker safety. The result is a strong presumption of delegated responsibility.
The retained-control exception
A hirer can still be liable if it retained control over the manner of the work and negligently exercised that control in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury. This exception traces to Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002). Mere authority to stop unsafe work is not enough; the hirer must actually exercise control in a way that contributed to the harm.
The concealed-hazard exception
A hirer can also be liable if it failed to disclose a concealed, pre-existing hazard that it knew about and the contractor could not reasonably have discovered. This exception comes from Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005). An open and obvious hazard, by contrast, is treated as delegated to the contractor.
The 2021 clarifications
In 2021, the California Supreme Court refined both exceptions in two decisions.
A hirer's authority over the contracted work amounts to retained control only if exercising that authority would sufficiently limit the contractor's freedom to perform the work in its own manner, and liability requires actual exercise of that control that affirmatively contributes to the injury.
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021), the Court held that a landowner generally owes no duty to a contractor's worker for a known hazard the worker could address through reasonable safety precautions.
Why it matters for injured workers
In many construction cases, the entire dispute is whether a Privette exception applies, because that determines whether the owner or general contractor can be sued at all.
Investigating who controlled the hazard, and how, is therefore central to a third-party claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Privette doctrine?
It is a California rule, from Privette v. Superior Court (1993), that a party hiring an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to the contractor's employees, because safety is presumed delegated to the contractor. Its exceptions, for retained control and concealed hazards, determine when a hirer can still be sued.
What are the exceptions to the Privette doctrine?
The two main exceptions are retained control, where the hirer kept control over the work and negligently exercised it in a way that contributed to the injury, and concealed hazard, where the hirer hid a known danger the contractor could not have discovered. Both were clarified by the California Supreme Court in 2021.
What did Sandoval v. Qualcomm decide?
Sandoval v. Qualcomm (2021) clarified the retained-control exception, holding that a hirer is liable only if it retained control over how the work was performed and actually exercised that control in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury. Mere authority to stop unsafe work is not enough.
Can a property owner be sued for a construction worker's injury?
Sometimes. Under Privette, an owner that merely hired a contractor is usually not liable, but it can be if it retained and negligently exercised control over the work or concealed a known hazard. Whether an exception applies depends closely on the facts of who controlled the dangerous condition.
Does Privette apply to subcontractors' workers?
Yes. The doctrine commonly arises when an employee of a subcontractor is injured and sues the general contractor or property owner who hired the chain of contractors. The same presumption of delegated safety and the same exceptions apply to those relationships.