A recent court decision highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding workplace injuries and contractor liability. Eugene Bowen, who suffered a fall while working inside a jet fuel tank at San Francisco International Airport, filed a complaint against Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company Inc. and HMT, LLC. The complaint was filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two on June 17, 2024.
Bowen's lawsuit stems from an incident in February 2017 when he fell from a ladder inside the jet fuel tank while employed by Team Industrial Services, Inc., a sub-tier independent contractor hired by HMT to inspect welding work. Bowen alleged that his injuries were due to the defendants' negligence and negligent supervision under premises liability. Specifically, he claimed that Burns & McDonnell and HMT failed to maintain safe working conditions by providing unstable equipment and failing to address hazardous conditions such as an unbalanced floor and debris.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the Privette doctrine, which generally limits a hirer's liability for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its workers unless specific exceptions apply. Bowen appealed this decision, arguing that there were triable issues of material fact regarding whether exceptions to the Privette doctrine applied in his case.
According to court documents, Bowen contended that it was not within his scope of responsibility to inspect the scaffolding, ladder, and floor of the jet fuel tank for concealed unsafe conditions. He also argued that HMT negligently set up a ladder and scaffolding for its own employees but did not provide adequate safety measures for sub-tier contractors like himself. Despite these claims, the court found no evidence suggesting that Burns & McDonnell or HMT directed Bowen's work or required him to use their equipment.
In its analysis, the court emphasized that under the Privette doctrine, hirers are typically not liable for injuries sustained by independent contractors or their workers unless they retain control over safety conditions in a manner that affirmatively contributes to those injuries. The court concluded that neither Burns & McDonnell nor HMT exercised such control over Bowen's work environment.
Bowen sought damages for his injuries through both workers' compensation benefits from Team Industrial Services and his lawsuit against Burns & McDonnell and HMT. However, given the lack of evidence supporting his claims of retained control or provision of unsafe equipment by the defendants, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Burns & McDonnell and HMT.
The case underscores significant legal principles regarding contractor liability and workplace safety responsibilities. It also highlights how courts interpret exceptions to established doctrines like Privette when determining liability in workplace injury cases.
The attorneys involved include David Zarmi from Zarmi Law representing Eugene Bowen and Jennifer K. Stinnett from Christensen Hsu Sipes LLP representing Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company Inc.
The case was presided over by Judge E.A. Karnow with Case ID CGC17561849.