Gravelin v. Satterfield
200 Cal. App. 4th 1209
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Gary Gravelin, employed by Linkus Enterprises, was injured while installing a satellite dish on defendants' home; he received workers’ compensation and filed a premises liability suit; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and the appellate court affirmed.
- Defendants Raymond and Charlotte Coolidge own the Mendocino County residence; DISH Network contracted to replace the dish and outsourced the job to Linkus, making Gravelin an independent contractor or employee of one.
- Gravelin lacked a tall ladder and used an 8-foot ladder to access a roof extension between the house and carport, which was four feet square and allegedly hazardous.
- The roof extension collapsed when Gravelin stepped onto it, causing his fall and injury; there was no permit obtained for the roof extension, and the extension existed for years with no complaints; Gravelin recovered and returned to work by 2008, with workers’ compensation paid in December 2008.
- The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and held that Privette and its progeny generally bar the hirer from liability for contractor injuries, and that no Premises liability exception applied because the roof extension was not a concealed hazard and the injury arose from Gravelin’s misuse of the structure.
- The court addressed building-code and permit issues, concluding that no specific regulatory violation was proven to create a negligence per se presumption, and that the evidence did not establish a nondelegable duty on the landowners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Privette bars liability for Gravelin’s injury. | Gravelin argues Premises liability exceptions apply. | Privette bars claims against hirer of contractor. | Privette bars the claim; no triable exception found. |
| Whether the roof extension was a preexisting, concealed hazard. | Kinsman exception should apply due to concealed hazard. | Hazard was open and caused by plaintiff's misuse. | No preexisting concealed hazard; not liable under Kinsman. |
| Whether defendants failed to warn or inspect for safety under Kinsman. | Defendants should have warned about the roof extension. | Contractor assumed responsibility for safety; no warn needed. | Defendants not liable; plaintiff chose access point. |
| Whether building permits or code violations create a nondelegable duty. | Permit failure and code violations show negligence per se. | No specific code violation identified; permit issue alone insufficient. | No nondelegable duty proven; no regulatory violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) (hirer not liable for contractor injuries absent exceptions)
- Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 518 (Cal. 2010) (contractor bears responsibility; limits on hirer liability)
- Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2005) (premises liability limits; concealed hazards and inspection duties)
- Markley v. Beagle, 66 Cal.2d 951 (Cal. 1967) (example of hazard known to owner; Mezzanine railing case)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (establishes general duty of landowners; status not determinative)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (summary judgment standard; material facts)