Reported / Citable
Background
Schurman Family Company owned an Oakland warehouse and leased roof and interior space to Verizon for communications equipment. Verizon hired an independent general contractor, which sent worker Phuokhao Bounxaysana to the site. While checking equipment on the roof, Bounxaysana left a protected walkway and fell through a skylight outside Verizon’s leased roof enclosure, suffering serious injuries.
Bounxaysana sued Verizon and Schurman for negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment to Verizon under the Privette doctrine, which generally places responsibility for jobsite safety on an independent contractor rather than the party hiring it. But the court denied Schurman’s motion because the property owner had not directly hired Verizon or the contractor and was instead Verizon’s landlord. Schurman sought appellate writ relief.
The Court’s Holding
The First District directed the trial court to enter summary judgment for Schurman. Privette protection extends through a chain of delegation, not merely to the party that signs the contractor’s agreement. By leasing the relevant portions of the property and granting Verizon the right to install, operate, and maintain its equipment, Schurman delegated control over that work. Verizon then delegated the work and jobsite-safety responsibility to its contractor.
The court rejected a categorical rule excluding landlords from Privette. The legal relationship’s label does not control; the question is whether the owner delegated responsibility for the work that caused the injury. Because the unchallenged judgment already established that Privette protected Verizon as the direct hirer, and Schurman stood upstream in the same delegation chain, the doctrine also protected Schurman. The court read contrary landlord language in an earlier appellate decision as tied to its facts rather than creating a blanket exception.
Key Takeaways
- A property owner can receive Privette protection even when a tenant, rather than the owner, directly hires the independent contractor.
- Courts examine whether responsibility for the relevant work moved through a chain of delegation; the landlord-tenant label is not dispositive.
- Lease provisions allocating control over installation, maintenance, access, and safety can be central to the analysis.
- Privette does not automatically resolve every owner-liability case; recognized exceptions may apply when an owner retains control and affirmatively contributes to an injury or fails to warn of a concealed hazard.
Why It Matters
California commercial landlords, tenants, and contractors should treat work-allocation language as more than boilerplate. A lease that clearly delegates control of specialized equipment and related maintenance may place the owner within Privette’s protective chain when the tenant hires contractors to do that work.
For injured-worker litigation, the decision shifts attention from who issued the work order to who controlled and delegated the activity that produced the injury. Plaintiffs and defendants should develop the full chain of contracts, leases, access rights, safety obligations, and actual control before evaluating summary judgment.