APPELLATE COURTS RENDER IMPORTANT DECISIONS
IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES

A major issue for property owners, particularly those who effect significant improvements, concerns personal injury lawsuits brought by employees of subcontractors performing work.

In two new, recent cases, the Appellate Courts have given further direction as to when the “hirer” of a subcontractor can be held liable. In the first case, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, an Appellate Court found that the general contractor (in that case, Cal Trans) not liable for a personal injury accident which occurred on a construction site because the “hirer’s” conduct did not “affirmatively” contribute to the accident.

In the Hooker case, an employee of a crane operator died when he attempted to swing the boom of a crane without first re-extending the outriggers for the crane. The crane then tipped over and the employee was killed. The widow of the employee who died on the job brought suit against Cal Trans, who had hired the crane operator. The Court, citing recent case law, found Cal Trans not liable as a matter of law. The Court found that Cal Trans owed no duty of care to the subcontractor’s employee because any “unsafe practice” which might be attributed to Cal Trans did not affirmatively contribute to the accident.

In a second case, McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., however, an Appellate Court found in favor of an employee of a subcontractor on the basis that Wal-Mart (which in that case was the property owner) had requested that the contractor use Wal-Mart’s equipment (in that case, forklifts) whenever pos-sible and furnished one for the employee’s use.

While the McKown decision is certainly a defeat for property owners and general contractors, the moral here is that personal injury suits can be defeated if establishes that the “hirer” of the subcontractor was not directly involved in the provision of tools or other instruments that are to be used by the subcontractor’s employees.