Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29

Background:

Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez, a professional window washer (independent contractor), regularly cleaned a large skylight on defendant John Mathis’s single-story residence roof.
The roof path used for cleaning was about 20 inches wide between a three-foot parapet and the roof edge; the surface had loose sand, gravel, and became increasingly slippery over time.
On August 1, 2012, Gonzalez slipped and fell from the roof while traversing that path; he knew of the hazardous conditions and had previously warned Mathis’s staff; he did not carry workers’ compensation.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Mathis under the Privette doctrine (hirer generally not liable for independent contractor’s workplace injuries); the Court of Appeal reversed, creating a third exception for known hazards that cannot be reasonably mitigated by the contractor.
The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Privette bars a new exception for known, unmitigable hazards and affirming that landowners are not liable absent other recognized exceptions.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for injuries caused by a known hazard on the premises that the contractor cannot avoid or mitigate by reasonable safety precautions	Gonzalez: landowner remains liable when a known hazard cannot be remedied or reasonably guarded against by the contractor	Mathis: Privette presumption delegates workplace-safety duty to the contractor; no third exception should be created	Held: No new third exception; landowner not liable for known hazards the contractor knows of and cannot reasonably mitigate absent other exceptions (Hooker or Kinsman)
Whether the Hooker retained-control exception applies where the hirer knew of an unsafe condition or failed to repair it (or where a housekeeper directed the contractor to go on the roof)	Gonzalez: Mathis retained control (sole ability to repair) and housekeeper’s direction contributed to the injury	Mathis: Mere knowledge or passive failure to correct does not amount to affirmative exercise of retained control; housekeeper’s instruction did not direct unsafe conduct	Held: Hooker not satisfied—mere failure to remedy or general direction to go on the roof does not constitute retained control that affirmatively contributed to the injury
Whether Kinsman’s premises-liability principles require holding landowners liable for known but unremediable hazards (i.e., adopt Court of Appeal’s corollary)	Gonzalez: Kinsman dicta supports liability where a known hazard cannot be addressed by reasonable precautions	Mathis: Extending Kinsman in that way would swallow Privette and create inconsistent rules for landowners vs. other hirers	Held: Kinsman does not create such a third exception; Kinsman remains limited to latent/hidden hazards and warning duties — no broader duty to remedy known hazards imposed on landowners

Key Cases Cited

Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) (hirer of independent contractor presumptively delegates workplace safety and is generally not liable for contractor’s employee injuries)
Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2002) (hirer liable only when it retains control and negligently exercises that retained control in a way that affirmatively contributes to injury)
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2005) (landowner may be liable for concealed/latent hazards the contractor could not reasonably discover if the landowner knew/should have known and failed to warn)
SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 590 (Cal. 2011) (hirer delegates to contractor duties to ensure workplace safety even when hirer’s regulatory duties preexisted the contract)
Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 518 (Cal. 2010) (Privette applies even where contractor lacks workers’ compensation; risk allocation follows delegation to contractor)