Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc.
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 157
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Oscar Peredia Jr., 19, was killed on Sept. 20, 2012 at Double Diamond dairy when a front-end loader struck and ran over him while he swept a feed slab. The loader operator was a Double Diamond employee. Facts about operator attention and whether Oscar Jr. wore earbuds were disputed.
- Double Diamond engaged HR Mobile Services, Inc. (~May 2012) on an oral agreement for HR, training, loss prevention, and workers’ compensation services; HR Mobile was paid $24,000/year and performed at least one site inspection and one safety training meeting (Aug. 24, 2012).
- HR Mobile obtained an IIPP template from a vendor and provided safety materials/training covering tractor/front-end loader safety; plaintiffs allege HR Mobile’s work was negligent and the IIPP noncompliant with Cal/OSHA standards.
- Plaintiffs sued (wrongful death/survival) alleging negligent undertaking by HR Mobile (failure to design/implement ground-worker protections, high-visibility apparel, training, and IIPP management). Trial court granted HR Mobile summary judgment, relying on Civ. Code §2343, concluding HR Mobile’s omissions were not "affirmative misfeasance." Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held Civil Code §2343 does not bar liability for an agent’s own independent torts (including negligent undertaking), and found triable issues on the scope of HR Mobile’s undertaking, breach, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a safety consultant who undertook safety services owes a duty to employer's employees under negligent undertaking (§324A / Artiglio). | HR Mobile undertook safety services for Double Diamond and those services were of the kind necessary to protect employees, so a duty arose. | HR Mobile only had a limited/secondary consulting role and did not fully assume employer's safety duties, so no duty to employees. | Duty may arise under negligent undertaking if elements met; triable issues remain about scope of undertaking so summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Civil Code §2343 bars plaintiffs’ claim because HR Mobile’s conduct was not "wrongful in their nature." | Plaintiffs: §2343 does not preclude agent liability for the agent’s own torts ("wrongful" = tortious). | HR Mobile: §2343 limits agent liability to affirmative misfeasance; passive omissions not "wrongful." | §2343 means acts "wrongful in their nature" are independent torts; it does not bar negligent undertaking claims. |
| Whether an agent must fully supplant an employer’s duty (not merely supplement) to be liable under §324A(b). | Plaintiffs: no full‑assumption requirement; liability can arise where employer delegated part of its duty. | HR Mobile: it never assumed the employer’s duties in full, so §324A(b) does not apply. | Court adopts the rule that a consultant need not fully assume employer’s duty; delegation of part of the duty can suffice (aligning with Canipe/Santillo/Wilson). |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on breach/causation given the record. | Plaintiffs: disputed facts about the scope of HR Mobile’s undertaking, adequacy of IIPP, training and inspections, and causation preclude summary judgment. | HR Mobile: it performed the services it agreed to and did not breach; alternative factual assertions aim to negate causation/duty. | There are triable factual issues as to the precise scope of HR Mobile’s undertaking, whether it breached, and whether the breach caused Oscar Jr.’s death; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 18 Cal.4th 604 (California 1998) (sets out five-element negligent undertaking test under Restatement §324A)
- Canipe v. National Loss Control Servs., Inc., 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1984) (holds liability under §324A(b) may arise when a defendant performs part of an employer's duty)
- Santillo v. Chambersburg Eng’g Co., 603 F. Supp. 211 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (safety inspections foreseeably concern protection of employees; supports negligent undertaking liability for consultants)
- Wilson v. Rebsamen Ins., Inc., 330 Ark. 687 (Ark. 1997) (safety inspection company owed duty under Restatement §324A(b); rejected implementation-authority requirement)
- Kurtin v. Elieff, 215 Cal.App.4th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (interprets Civ. Code §2343 to mean agents are liable for their independent torts but not for principals' torts)