Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 394
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Michael Jackson hired Dr. Conrad Murray as his personal physician; AEG agreed to negotiate and pay Murray to accompany Jackson on the "This Is It" tour under a draft independent contractor agreement that Michael never signed and AEG never executed.
- Draft contract described Murray providing "general medical care," required proof of licenses, contemplated AEG approval of equipment and a medical assistant (primarily for London), and allowed Michael to terminate Murray at will; Murray fax-signed the draft but neither AEG nor Michael executed it.
- AEG executives met Murray and attended meetings with Murray, Jackson, and tour staff about Jackson’s health and rehearsal attendance; AEG expressed interest in Jackson being fit for performances and assisted with contracting logistics but did not direct medical treatment.
- Jackson died from acute propofol intoxication administered by Murray in Los Angeles; Murray was later criminally convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Jackson’s death.
- Plaintiffs (Katherine Jackson, on behalf of herself and Jackson’s children) sued AEG for negligence theories including negligent hiring/retention/supervision and respondeat superior; the trial court granted summary adjudication on negligence and respondeat superior, leaving negligent hiring/retention/supervision to trial; jury found AEG hired Murray but Murray was not unfit or incompetent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty in negligence (AEG increased risk by pressuring Murray) | AEG’s conduct and financial pressure created an increased risk and thus a duty to refrain from pressuring Murray | AEG’s requests to keep Jackson healthy did not make it foreseeable Murray would use dangerous drugs; no duty to control doctor’s medical judgment | No duty; summary adjudication proper — AEG’s conduct did not foreseeably create risk that Murray would administer propofol |
| Negligent undertaking (AEG voluntarily assumed protective/medical duties) | AEG undertook to provide medical care and medical assistant/equipment and negligently performed that undertaking | Any undertaking was vague; no specific request for LA equipment/assistant; plaintiffs cannot show reliance or increased risk from AEG’s limited actions | No triable issue: negligent-undertaking doctrine inapplicable — AEG made no specific undertaking creating reliance or increased risk |
| Contract-based duty (AEG’s contract with Murray) | Draft contract obligated AEG to provide equipment/assistant and thus gave rise to a duty to beneficiaries like Jackson | The contractual obligations were conditional on Murray’s request and Michael’s signature; AEG had no binding contractual duty as drafted and performed | No duty arising from contract; no evidence AEG breached a contractual duty that created tort liability |
| Respondeat superior / employment status | Murray was AEG’s employee or agent (or, if independent contractor, his work created a peculiar risk) making AEG vicariously liable | Murray was an independent contractor (no right to control medical means); AEG did not employ or control him; peculiar-risk doctrine doesn’t apply; Murray not AEG agent | Murray was an independent contractor as a matter of law; peculiar-risk and agency theories fail; summary adjudication of respondeat superior proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (discussing summary judgment / burden shifting standard)
- Weirum v. RKO General, 15 Cal.3d 40 (foreseeability and duty analysis; misfeasance vs. nonfeasance)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (negligent undertaking doctrine elements)
- S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (test for employment: right to control manner and means)
- Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (peculiar risk doctrine and limits of employer liability for independent contractors)
- Coffee v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 8 Cal.3d 551 (application of negligent undertaking in a more specific employer medical-exam context)