Vebr v. Culp
241 Cal. App. 4th 1044
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Vebr, an uninsured painter hired by OC Wide Painting, was injured when he fell from an extension ladder while painting the Culps’ interior ceiling.
- OC Wide Painting was an independent contractor hired by the Culps to perform interior painting and allegedly lacked workers’ compensation insurance due to a license-exemption status.
- The ladder and materials were provided by OC Wide Painting; the Culps were not present at the accident scene.
- Vebr sued the Culps for general negligence and premises liability, alleging the Culps’ premises and actions contributed to the injury via the contractor’s negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Culps, treating OC Wide Painting as unlicensed and uninsured and finding no triable issue of fact as to Culps’ direct negligence or respondeat superior liability.
- OC Wide Painting’s license status and workers’ compensation exemption were central to the dispute, influencing whether the Culps could be liable under tort theories anchored in statutory employer concepts and section 2750.5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does unlicensed/uninsured contractor status trigger tort liability for the landowner under respondeat superior? | Vebr asserts Culps may be liable as statutory employer under §2750.5. | Culps contend no triable issue; no direct negligence by Culps. | No triable issue; no direct or vicarious liability shown. |
| Does section 3708’s presumption apply to defeat or shift the burden in tort claims against homeowners? | Presumption of negligence against employer applies to Culps as statutory employer. | Presumption does not apply or is not triggered under facts. | Presumption not applicable to sustain tort liability here. |
| Can plaintiff rely on res ipsa loquitur to prove negligence? | Res ipsa loquitur could establish negligence by someone at the site. | No evidence identifying the negligent actor; cause of fall unknown. | Res ipsa not satisfied; no inference of negligence. |
| Is the plaintiff barred from tort claims because the contractor lacked workers’ compensation and the employee was not within 3352(h) bounds? | Unlicensed contractor status may still allow tort claims against landowner. | Employee not within workers’ comp system under §3352(h); tort relief may still exist. | Section 3352(h) excludes Vebr from workers’ comp but does not bar tort claims against Culps where applicable. |
| Did the trial court properly shift the evidentiary burden on fault and causation at summary judgment? | Burden remained on Culps to show no triable issue; Mendoza analysis. | Burden appropriately shifted or not, given undisputed facts. | No reversible error; no triable issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Nelson, 44 Cal.4th 908 (2008) (unlicensed contractor workers may still be treated as employees for tort purposes under 2750.5)
- Zaragoza v. Ibarra, 174 Cal.App.4th 1012 (2009) (unlicensed contractor workers may fall outside workers’ comp; homeowner exposure in tort)
- Mendoza v. Brodeur, 142 Cal.App.4th 72 (2006) (unlicensed contractor and 2750.5 analysis; evidentiary burden at summary judgment)
- State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.3d 5 (1985) (premises owner liability when contractor lacks license relates to 2750.5)
- Cortez v. Abich, 51 Cal.4th 285 (2011) ( unsettled questions about homeowner liability for unlicensed contractors under 2750.5)