In this published case, the Court had to decide 2 issues: Must a sub take affirmative steps to protect others for a hazard it did not create? And/or, must a sub warn against such hazards regardless?
A subcontractor's employee, while working at a multiemployer construction site, was slightly injured by a preexisting, nonobvious hazard that had not been created in the course of the subcontractor's work.
The employee told his foreman about the incident, but the foreman did not report it to the general contractor. Shortly thereafter, two employees of the general contractor were severely injured by the same hazard.
After reviewing both common law and the construction contract, the Court concluded that the subcontractor had NO duty to take affirmative steps to protect those working for other employers from hazards not created by the subcontractor.
However, the Court also ruled that the subcontractor DID have a statutory duty of care, created by applicable workplace safety statutes and regulations, requiring the subcontractor to report hazards to which its employees were exposed.
Further, that under California Supreme Court case law, one who breaches such a duty is liable in tort.
It therefore reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the subcontractor.
The case is Suarez v. Pacific Northwest Mechanical.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
