McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Decision Date31 January 2002
Docket NumberNo. S091097.,S091097.
Citation38 P.3d 1094,115 Cal.Rptr.2d 868,27 Cal.4th 219
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesBrian McKOWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

Snyder & Strozier, Snyder, Strozier, Maho & Tomlinson, Barry Clifford Snyder and Will Tomlinson, Santa Barbara, for Defendant and Appellant.

Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, for the Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Garza, Garza & Pacheco, John M. Pacheco; Law Offices of Robert H. Pourvali and Robert H. Pourvali, Calabasas, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ian Herzog, Santa Monica; William L. Veen; James C. Sturdevant, San Francisco; Brian C. Unitt, Riverside; Dennis M. Elber, Long Beach; David A. Rosen, Los Angeles; The Arns Law Firm, Morgan C. Smith and Robert S. Arns, San Francisco, for the Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

BROWN, J.

This is the third in a series of recent cases in which we have been called upon to consider the reach of our decisions in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721 (Privette ) and Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504 (Toland). In Privette and Toland, we held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under either of the alternative versions of the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in sections 413 and 416 of the Restatement Second of Torts (hereafter Restatement),1 but is restricted instead to a claim against the contractor under the workers' compensation insurance system. The two prior cases, respectively, raise the question whether, under the rationale of Privette and Toland, an employee of an independent contractor is barred from suing the hirer of the contractor under the tort theories of (1) negligent hiring, and (2) negligent exercise of retained control. In Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 108 Cal. Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096 (Camargo), we held that an employee of an independent contractor is barred from suing the hirer of the contractor for the tort of negligent hiring. In Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (Hooker), a companion to this case, we held that a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a work site, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries. In this case, we hold that a hirer is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer's provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Brian McKown was the employee of an independent contractor hired by defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) to install sound systems in its stores, including the store in Chino where this accident occurred. Installation of the sound systems involved running wires and installing speakers in the store ceilings. Wal-Mart requested that the contractor use Wal-Mart's forklifts whenever possible in performing the work. The request was understood not to be a directive. The forklift that Wal-Mart employees furnished McKown had equipment for overhead work, consisting of a work platform along with a four-foot extension to raise the platform. For safety, the extension was supposed to be chained to the forklift, and the platform chained to the forklift or to the extension. However, only one chain, securing the extension to the forklift, was provided by Wal-Mart. After discussing the advisability of using the forklift without a chain securing the platform to the extension or the forklift, McKown and his colleague decided to do so. While his colleague was driving the forklift and McKown was working on the platform, the platform hit a ceiling pipe, disengaged from the extension, and fell about 12 to 15 feet to the floor with McKown on it.

A jury found that Wal-Mart was negligent in providing unsafe equipment and allocated 55 percent of the responsibility for the accident to McKown's employer, 23 percent to Wal-Mart, 15 percent to the manufacturer of the equipment, and 7 percent to McKown. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that "plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart negligently supplied unsafe equipment was viable notwithstanding Privette and Toland." We granted review, and limited the issue to be briefed and argued to the question whether, under our decisions in Privette and Toland, an employee of an independent contractor is barred from pursuing a lawsuit against the hirer of the independent contractor on the theory the hirer negligently provided unsafe equipment. After review was granted, we issued our decision in Camargo, extending Privette and Toland to the tort of negligent hiring, and we then requested counsel to file supplemental letter briefs exploring the significance of Camargo for the question whether an employee of an independent contractor may bring an action for the tort of negligent provision of unsafe equipment against the hirer of the contractor. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff McKown, is affirmed.

DISCUSSION

The line of cases bearing on the question presented here is discussed in the companion to this case, Hooker, supra, 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081, so that discussion need not be repeated at length here. To summarize: In Privette and Toland, we held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under either of the alternative versions of the peculiar risk doctrine set forth in sections 413 and 416 of the Restatement. Under section 413, 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, can be liable if the contractor's negligent performance of the work causes injury to others. Under section 416, even if the hirer has provided for special precautions in the contract or otherwise, the hirer can nevertheless be liable if the contractor fails to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions and the contractor's performance of the work causes injury to others. In Toland, we rejected the argument that Privette did not bar recovery for direct liability under section 413, but only for vicarious liability under section 416. "[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." (Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 265, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504.)

In Camargo, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1235,108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617,25 P.3d 1096, we held that an employee of a contractor may not sue the hirer of the contractor under the negligent hiring theory set forth in section 411. Under section 411, a hirer is liable for physical harm to third persons caused by the hirer's failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent contractor to perform work that will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or to perform any duty the hirer owes to third persons. In Camargo, we rejected the argument that Privette and Toland were distinguishable on the ground that in a negligent hiring case the hirer is, in a sense, being taxed with his own negligence, making his liability direct. "[T]he same could be said with regard to an action brought under the peculiar risk theory set forth in section 413. More importantly, under both sections 411 and 413, the liability of the hirer 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 caused the injury by failing to use reasonable care in performing the work.' (Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 265,74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878,955 P.2d 504.) Therefore, in a negligent hiring case under the theory set forth in section 411, just as in peculiar risk cases under the theories set forth in sections 413 and 416, '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.' (Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 267,74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878,955 P.2d 504.)" (Camargo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1244,108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617,25 P.3d 1096.)

In Hooker, we held that a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries. Imposing tort liability on a hirer of an independent contractor when the hirer's conduct has affirmatively contributed to the injuries of the contractor's employee is consistent with the rationale of our decisions in Privette, Toland and Camargo, because the liability of the hirer in such a case is not in essence vicarious or derivativ e in the sense that it derives from the act or omission of the hired contractor. "To the contrary, the liability of the hirer in such a case is direct in a much stronger sense of that term." (Hooker, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 212, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081.)

For the same reason, when a hirer of an independent contractor, by negligently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • Park v. Burlington
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2003
    ...injury." (Id. at p. 212, fn. 3, 115 Cal.Rptr .2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081.) In the companion case of McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 115 Cal.Rptr .2d 868, 38 P.3d 1094, our Supreme Court held that "a hirer is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the ......
  • Kinsman v. Unocal Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2005
    ...Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (Hooker); McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 868, 38 P.3d 1094 (McKown).) This case requires us to consider an issue not addressed by the previous cases: when, if ever, ......
  • Kinsman v. Unocal Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2005
    ...Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (Hooker); McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 868, 38 P.3d 1094 (McKown).) This case requires us to consider an issue not addressed by the previous cases: when, if ever, ......
  • Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2003
    ...of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 853, 38 P.3d 1081 (Hooker) and McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 868, 38 P.3d 1094 (McKown), the Supreme Court limited the reach of Privette, Toland, and Camargo. In Hooker, the California Departme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Vargas: The Next Step In The ‘Peculiar' Evolution
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 16, 2015
    ...(c) exercising active control over the employees or operations of the independent contractor (see McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 219); and if there is an alleged statutory or regulatory violation, (2) that the relevant statute(s) or regulation(s) indicate(s) an intent to......
6 books & journal articles
  • Governmental tort liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...Transportation , 27 Cal. 4th 198, 204 (2002). See §17-12:00. • Negligent retention of an incompetent contractor ( McKown v. Wal-Mart , 27 Cal. 4th 219, 222 (2002); Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy , 25 Cal. 4th 1235 (2001). See §17-13:00. Action/failure to act did not “affirmatively contribute to a......
  • Industrial injury/third party cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...Superior Court , 5 Cal. 4th 689 (1993); Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 253 (1998); McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 219 (2002); Hooker v. Dep’t of Transp., 27 Cal. 4th 198 (2002). §6:20 ELEMENTS §6:21 Duty Unless protected by the rationale enunciated in Tolan......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • March 31, 2022
    ...Ins. Co, 42 CWCR 174 (BPD-2014), §21:171 McKinnon v. WCAB, 149 CA4th 1125, 72 CCC 427 (2007), §24:31 McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 27 Cal 4th 219, 67 CCC 36 (SC-2002), §2:92 McKray v. Burlingame Industries, Inc., 2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 293 (NPD-2020), §19:58 McLellan v. WCAB, 32......
  • Falls on Construction Sites
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Slip and Fall Practice Part Three. Categories of Cases
    • May 6, 2012
    ...v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235; Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198; McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219.) The court then considered an issue not addressed by the previous cases: When, if ever, is a landowner that hires an independent contractor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT