The Privette Doctrine has been a cornerstone of California law since its inception in 1993, influencing the liability landscape for property owners and contractors in workplace injury cases. Over the decades, its application has evolved through key California Supreme Court decisions, most recently in Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated (2021) and Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021). These rulings, while not altering the foundational principles of Privette, provided much-needed clarification regarding its exceptions. For those navigating workplace injury cases in 2025, understanding these developments is critical to ensuring compliance and safeguarding rights.

Privette Doctrine: A Foundation in Delegation

The Privette Doctrine originated with the California Supreme Court's decision in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. It established that a property owner or general contractor who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries sustained by the contractor's employees. The rationale lies in delegation—when a contractor is hired, the responsibility for ensuring workplace safety is presumed to be delegated to the contractor. This shields the hiring entity from liability for injuries arising out of the contractor's work.

The doctrine's foundation rests on three key principles:

1. Independent Expertise: Contractors are presumed to possess the expertise to manage safety concerns specific to their trade.

2. Delegation of Duty: Responsibility for maintaining workplace safety shifts to the contractor.

3. Workers' Compensation Framework: Injured workers are generally limited to recovery through workers' compensation, insulating property owners and hirers from direct liability.

However, this general rule is not absolute. Exceptions exist, and plaintiffs often face an uphill battle proving their applicability.

Key Developments: Sandoval and Gonzalez

In 2021, the California Supreme Court revisited Privette in two landmark cases:

1. Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated (2021) 12 Cal.5th 256

2. Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021) 12 Cal.5th 29

These cases clarified the application of the doctrine's exceptions, particularly those established in earlier cases such as Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) and Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005).

Sandoval v. Qualcomm: Clarifying “Retained Control”

In Sandoval, the plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was severely injured due to an arc flash caused by live electrical equipment on a Qualcomm property. The issue was whether Qualcomm's actions met the “retained control” exception established in Hooker.

The Court reaffirmed that for liability under retained control:

• The hirer must retain substantial control over the manner in which the contracted work is performed.

• The hirer must exercise this control in a way that affirmatively contributes to the injury.

Key Takeaways from Sandoval:

1. Scope of Control: Retained control must go beyond general oversight or safety recommendations. It must substantially limit the contractor's freedom to perform the work in their own manner.

2. Affirmative Contribution: The hirer's actions must directly induce or exacerbate unsafe conditions leading to injury. Mere failure to prevent a hazard is insufficient.

3. Judicial Guidance: The Court criticized the existing jury instructions (CACI 1009B), suggesting revisions to align with the legal standards established in Hooker.

Ultimately, the Court found Qualcomm's involvement insufficient to establish retained control and reversed the jury's verdict, entering judgment in favor of Qualcomm.

Gonzalez v. Mathis: Addressing Known Hazards

In Gonzalez, a professional window washer fell from a homeowner's roof and alleged that the property owner was liable under premises liability principles. The Court analyzed whether the landowner's duty to warn of known hazards extended to independent contractors.

Key Takeaways from Gonzalez:

1. Application of the Kinsman Exception: The Court clarified that a landowner's duty to warn applies only to latent hazards—those not reasonably detectable by the contractor.

2. Delegation of Safety: When a contractor is aware of a hazard or should reasonably detect it, the hirer's duty is discharged.

3. Limitations on Liability: The Court limited its holding to hazards on the premises directly related to the contractor's worksite.

The Court's decision reinforced that independent contractors are responsible for managing known risks within their scope of work, further narrowing the application of exceptions to Privette.

The Three Core Exceptions to Privette

Understanding the Privette Doctrine requires familiarity with its exceptions:

1. Retained Control (Hooker): The hirer retains and exercises control over the contractor's work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury.

   • Key Case: Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002)

   • Jury Instruction: CACI 1009B

2. Failure to Warn (Kinsman): The hirer fails to disclose latent hazards on the property that are not reasonably detectable by the contractor.

   • Key Case: Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)

   • Jury Instruction: CACI 1009A

3. Defective Equipment (McKown): The hirer provides defective equipment that contributes to the injury.

   • Key Case: McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002)

   • Jury Instruction: CACI 1009D

Privette Doctrine in Practice: What to Expect in 2025

1. Heightened Scrutiny of Exceptions

Courts are likely to demand detailed evidence when exceptions are claimed. Plaintiffs must demonstrate specific actions or omissions by the hirer that satisfy the elements of retained control, failure to warn, or defective equipment. The burden of proof remains high, and general allegations of negligence are insufficient.

2. Legislative Advocacy

The limitations imposed by Privette have sparked debate about fairness to injured workers. Labor advocates have called for legislative reform to address perceived inequities, particularly in light of Labor Code §3852, which guarantees employees the right to seek damages against third parties. A proposed amendment in 2024 seeks to clarify the interplay between Privette and Labor Code protections.

3. Documentation and Risk Management

Property owners and contractors must maintain meticulous records of safety protocols, contractual terms, and communications. Comprehensive documentation is often decisive in defending against claims and proving adherence to safety obligations.

4. Trends in Litigation

A recent study revealed:

• 85% of Privette cases in the last decade were resolved in favor of hirers.

• 10% of cases succeeded based on retained control or other exceptions.

• Construction-related injuries account for the majority of Privette claims, emphasizing the doctrine's impact on the industry.

Navigating Privette: Legal Guidance Matters

The Privette Doctrine remains a complex and evolving area of law. Whether you're a property owner, contractor, or worker, understanding your rights and responsibilities under this framework is essential. The nuanced interpretations of exceptions and the evolving judicial landscape make experienced legal counsel indispensable.

At our firm, we specialize in workplace injury litigation and have extensive experience navigating Privette-related cases. If you're dealing with a potential Privette issue, contact us to ensure your rights are protected and your case is thoroughly assessed. As 2025 unfolds, staying informed and proactive will help you navigate the complexities of this critical doctrine.