Court Revives Injured Worker’s Claims

By /

May 14, 2025 | Los Angeles, CA — MedLegalNews.com —A California appellate court in Los Angeles has revived an injured worker’s claims for premises liability and negligence, ruling that the trial court erred by dismissing the case without fully examining critical factual disputes. The decision marks an important clarification for injured workers seeking civil remedies in addition to workers’ compensation, especially when property owners may bear some responsibility for hazardous worksite conditions.

The appellate court emphasized that an injured worker can pursue civil litigation when there are unanswered questions about the property owner’s involvement in ensuring site safety. Although the Privette doctrine typically shields landowners from liability for injuries to independent contractors, exceptions exist when the landowner retains control over the work or knowingly fails to remedy concealed dangers.

For other injured workers in California, this ruling reinforces the right to challenge early case dismissals and encourages thorough legal examination of landowner responsibilities. It also underscores the necessity of investigating the degree of control, safety oversight, and any direct actions that may have contributed to unsafe conditions on the job site.

Injury at a Worksite

The plaintiff, an injured worker employed as a contract laborer, sustained injuries while performing job duties at a commercial property in California. The injured worker alleged that the property owner failed to maintain a safe work environment and neglected to address known hazards present on the site. These alleged oversights formed the basis for the worker’s civil lawsuit, which included claims of negligence and premises liability in pursuit of compensation beyond the workers’ compensation system.

Initially, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner, ruling that the injured worker’s claims were barred by the Privette doctrine. This legal doctrine generally protects landowners from liability when an independent contractor is injured on their property, under the assumption that contractors control the means and methods of their work. However, exceptions to the Privette doctrine apply when landowners retain control over worksite safety or fail to warn of concealed dangers.

Legal scholars continue to examine the scope and exceptions of the Privette doctrine, as outlined in a comprehensive analysis by Advocate Magazine.

Appellate Court Finds Disputed Facts

On appeal, the court determined that significant material facts remained in dispute, particularly regarding whether the property owner retained control over the dangerous condition that led to the injured worker’s harm. Additionally, the court questioned whether the owner had a continuing duty to correct or adequately warn about the hazard present on the premises. Due to these unresolved issues, the appellate court concluded that the matter was better suited for a jury to decide rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.

The appellate panel reaffirmed that under California law, landowners can still bear liability in premises liability cases when certain conditions are met. Specifically, liability may attach when a property owner:

  • Retains control over the worksite in a manner that contributes to an injured worker’s injury.
  • Fails to disclose or warn about concealed dangers that the injured worker would not have been aware of
  • Exercises control in a way that directly and affirmatively contributes to the harm suffered by the injured worker

The court’s analysis emphasized that ownership alone does not automatically exempt a landowner from liability when there is evidence of active participation or oversight that may have led to unsafe conditions. In this case, the appellate court found that the record contained enough indications of potential landowner involvement—beyond the role of a passive property owner—to warrant further examination in a trial setting.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder that the protections afforded by the Privette doctrine are not absolute. When an injured worker presents facts suggesting that a landowner played an active role in site safety or failed to address known hazards, courts may allow such claims to proceed to trial. This development is particularly important for independent contractors and other workers navigating California’s complex framework of liability and workplace safety standards.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores important limitations of the Privette doctrine, which is often cited by property owners to avoid liability for injuries sustained by independent contractors. By reviving the injured worker’s claims, the appellate court reaffirmed that premises liability and negligence suits may proceed when there are genuine factual disputes about a property owner’s conduct, control, or failure to address hazardous conditions.

This ruling could have far-reaching implications for cases involving contract labor, particularly in California’s complex employment landscape where multi-employer worksites are common. It emphasizes that landowners cannot rely solely on contractual defenses when evidence suggests they retained control over safety conditions or failed to warn of latent dangers. This is especially relevant in industries such as construction, manufacturing, and facilities management, where safety oversight is often shared or ambiguous.

For employers, property owners, and contractors alike, this case serves as a cautionary reminder to clearly define responsibilities for workplace safety and to ensure proactive measures are in place to mitigate risks. Failure to do so may expose property owners to civil litigation, even when independent contractors are involved.

Stay ahead of compliance updates, liability rulings, and workplace safety responsibilities—subscribe to MedLegalNews.com for essential legal insights and regulatory news impacting California employers and property owners.

📰 Read More from MedLegalNews.com:

Scroll to Top