Court Publishes Decision Finding Privette Bars Ironworker's Claim

Tuesday, April 14, 2026 | 0

The 1st District Court of Appeal of California published its decision finding that the Privette doctrine bars an ironworker's civil claim against a contractor.

The appellate court said Leonardo Cordero failed to provide evidence that raised a triable issue of fact about whether Ghilotti Construction Co. Inc. retained control of workplace safety at a pedestrian bridge project in Menlo Park. The court also rejected the argument that the contractor breached a nondelegable regulatory duty to provide safe access to the workplace.

The decision was unpublished when the 1st DCA released it on March 18. The court published it on Friday, meaning it can be cited as precedent.

Cordero worked for Camblin Steel Service Inc., a subcontractor Ghilotti retained to do steel reinforcing work on concrete bridge columns. On the day Camblin was supposed to start work on the project, workers for Ghilotti were pumping standing water and cleaning out mud around the footing of a silt fence at the jobsite.

Cordero passed through areas that were muddy before he slipped and fell while climbing a rebar structure.

Cordero filed suit against Ghilotti, which moved for summary judgment under the Privette doctrine. The doctrine presumes that a person hiring an independent contractor has delegated responsibility for workplace safety to the contractor and is not liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its workers. 

A trial judge granted Ghilotti’s motion, and Cordero appealed, arguing that Ghilotti could not delegate a regulatory duty to provide safe access to the worksite and that pumping standing water and removing mud amounted to an exercise of retained control over workplace safety.

In SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways Inc., the California Supreme Court held that the Privette doctrine presumes the hiring party has delegated any tort law duty of care it has under rules promulgated by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

"In sum, the 'delegation' which is presumed as a threshold matter under Privette encompasses not only contractually based workplace safety duties, but also those imposed by regulatory provisions," the appeals court said.

Cordero argued that a safety order issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board on reinforcing steel and post-tensioning in concrete effectively created a carve-out from the 2011 SeaBright decision for ironworkers.

The 1st District Court of Appeal said that even if the health standards board could abrogate high court precedent, there is nothing in the language of the safety order, the board's hearing notice or its final statement of reasons identifying an intent to create an exception to SeaBright.

The court was also not persuaded by Cordero's argument that, as a factual matter, Ghilotti did not delegate responsibility for workplace safety to Camblin.

He argued that Ghilotti's contract required it to provide safe working conditions, that it performed grading, paving and concrete work, and inspected the site each day.

The court said Cordero's argument confused the requisite factual foundation that a defendant must establish to trigger the Privette presumption and the burden that a plaintiff then carries to raise a triable issue that an exception to Privette applies.

The appeals court also rejected the argument that removing standing water from the jobsite demonstrated that Ghilotti retained control of safety.

An exception to Privette applies if the hirer retains control over the manner in which the contractor performs work; exercises that control in such a way that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in its own manner; and the hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributes to the worker's injury.

There was no evidence that Ghilotti directed Camblin to do the steel reinforcing work in a certain way or interfered with how it was accomplished to demonstrate retained control, the appeals court said.

The state Supreme Court has offered examples of situations where courts have found that a hirer exercised retained control, including directing the manner or methods in which a contractor performs work; interfering with a contractor's decision about the appropriate safety measures to adopt; requesting that a contractor use the hirer's own defective equipment; contractually prohibiting a contractor from implementing necessary safety precautions; and reneging on a promise to remedy a known hazard.

Even if Ghilotti personnel didn't adequately remove water from the site as Cordero claimed, that doesn't render Privette inapplicable. A hirer can be responsible for the presence of a hazard but lets the contractor decide the best way to accommodate the risk.

"Simply put, 'a hirer does not exercise retained control over the contractor’s work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the contractor’s [employee’s] injury by merely permitting or failing to correct an unsafe work condition,'" the court said. "But that is the most that can be said about the showing Cordero made here and, as many cases have now held, such a limited showing does not suffice for purposes of the 'retained control' exception to the Privette doctrine."

To read the court's decision in Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Co. Inc., No. A173024, 04/09/2026, published, click here.