Jury instructions wrong in contractor liability cases, justice says

Reversing an appellate court decision, the state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled Qualcomm Inc. cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by an electrical parts specialist who successfully sued the company for damages.

Qualcomm was held liable along with a contractor it hired under a Supreme Court precedent that allows claims against a hiring company if it retains control of the contractor's work.

But Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote that Qualcomm owed no duty to plaintiff Jose M. Sandoval in a decision that faults the instructions given to juries in such cases. Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., 2021 DJDAR 9399 (S. Ct, filed Nov. 28, 2018).

Sandoval suffered third-degree burns over a third of his body at the site. A San Diego County jury apportioned 46% of the fault to Qualcomm, another 45% to contractor TransPower Testing Inc., and the remainder to Sandoval.

Qualcomm appealed.

Companies that hire contractors usually are not liable for damages if workers are injured, but state courts have carved out a few exceptions to that rule, known as the Privette doctrine. Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689 (1993).

The opinion notes hiring companies can be held liable if they withhold critical information about a concealed hazard or retain and exercise control over the contractor's work that affirmatively contributes to the worker's injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal. 4th 198 (2002).

Cuéllar ruled that there is no evidence that Qualcomm affirmatively contributed to Sandoval's injury and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for the company notwithstanding the verdict.

Further, the justice wrote that the Judicial Council and its Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions should update jury instructions in similar cases against hiring companies.

"The plaintiff sustained atrocious injuries that could have been prevented," Cuéllar wrote. "But a rule subjecting Qualcomm to tort liability merely for failing to prevent those injuries could easily lead to more, rather than fewer, injuries in future cases."

"For instance, making the hirer liable under the circumstances presented here might incentivize hirers to impose and enforce requirements on their contractors that -- owing to the hirer's more limited expertise and experience -- actually impede the contractor's ability to do the job safely," he added.

Stephen E. Norris, an attorney with Horvitz & Levy LLP who represents Qualcomm, hailed the decision.

"We are very happy for Qualcomm and very pleased to see the Supreme Court once again reaffirm the Privette doctrine," Norris wrote in a statement.

"Like the court's prior decisions applying the Privette doctrine, this opinion provides significant protections to California property owners, whether Fortune 500 companies or individual homeowners," he added.

Stuart B. Esner, an attorney with Esner, Chang & Boyer who represented Sandoval, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Charles Dell'Ario, a Napa attorney who filed an amicus curiae brief for the Consumer Attorneys of California on behalf of the plaintiff, said the outcome will add "a little more restrictions for plaintiffs, but it's not the end of these cases."