Nicholson v. Southern California Edison CA2/7, B302287

Background

SCE contracted Hampton Tedder to perform maintenance on an underground BURD switch; Hampton Tedder linemen Nicholson (foreman) and Hafiz performed the work.
On day one SCE de-energized the switch; the crew disconnected cables, grounded them, and installed insulating "dummy elbows" over the bushings but left disconnected cables in the enclosure; SCE then re-energized the switch.
A week later, while Nicholson and Hafiz returned to remove the disconnected cables, Hafiz fell into the enclosure and struck the BURD switch; two dummy elbows dislodged and an arc flash occurred, burning both men.
Plaintiffs sued SCE for negligence (theories: nondelegable duty, retained control, failure to warn), violation of Pub. Utils. Code § 2106, and loss of consortium; SCE moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication.
SCE relied on expert John Loud, who opined no SCE equipment malfunctioned at the moment of the arc flash; the trial court found plaintiffs’ testimony speculative, granted summary adjudication on the negligence and § 2106 claims, and entered judgment for SCE.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding SCE failed to meet its initial summary judgment burden and that plaintiffs had raised triable issues whether SCE supplied defective/dangerous equipment (dummy elbows) and retained sufficient control to have contributed to the injuries.

Issues

Issue	Nicholson/Hafiz Argument	SCE Argument	Held
Did SCE cause or contribute to the arc flash (causation for negligence)?	Dummy elbows provided on SCE system were defective/should not have dislodged; SCE’s regulatory violations and equipment supply contributed to injuries.	Expert Loud shows no SCE equipment malfunctioned at time of arc flash; arc flash resulted from contractor action.	Reversed — SCE did not make a prima facie showing it did not cause or contribute; plaintiffs raised triable issues about the dummy elbows and regulatory breaches that could have contributed to injuries.
Was SCE liable for providing unsafe equipment / did it retain control?	SCE furnished materials (dummy elbows) for work on SCE systems and thus could be liable where equipment affirmatively contributed to injury.	Contractors provided all safety equipment; SCE did not retain control over safety.	Reversed — evidence that SCE supplied elbows and testimony about how elbows should perform created triable issues on retained control and affirmative contribution.
Did SCE meet its initial burden on summary judgment (burden-shifting under Aguilar/Code Civ. Proc.)?	N/A (plaintiffs argue movant failed to negate all theories and causation).	SCE contends Loud’s declaration negates causation and therefore shifts burden.	Reversed — court finds SCE’s expert failed to show dummy elbows did not malfunction or that SCE’s conduct could not have contributed; burden never shifted.
Was the § 2106 claim properly adjudicated?	§ 2106 and related regulations protect against acts/omissions that caused or worsened injury; plaintiffs alleged failures that would have mitigated injuries.	SCE argued the regulations plaintiffs cite apply only to SCE employees, not independent-contractor employees.	Reversed — trial court erroneously granted adjudication based on its incorrect causation finding; triable issues remain whether regulatory violations contributed to harm.

Key Cases Cited

Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993) (doctrine on delegation of employer duties to independent contractors)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 219 (2002) (hirer liability where provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to injury)
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978) (product defect / consumer expectation test)
Chavez v. Glock, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 1283 (2012) (standards for expert qualification)
Demara v. The Raymond Corp., 13 Cal.App.5th 545 (2017) (product-failure proof and consumer-expectation evidence)