Quick answer: It is the main way an injured worker sues the general contractor, owner, or developer that hired his employer. California presumes a company that hires an independent contractor has handed off responsibility for the safety of that contractor's workers, under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. Under Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 and Sandoval v. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (2021) 12 Cal.5th 256, that presumption gives way when the hirer retained control over how the work was done, actually exercised that control, and did so negligently in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury.
If you were hurt on a job site, someone has probably already told you that workers' compensation is all you get. Sometimes that is true. Often it is only true about your employer, and the company that actually ran the site is a different story. Call (626) 888-2223 and you will speak directly with Tom Vertanous.
The wall: what Privette does
When an owner or general contractor hires a subcontractor, California law presumes the hirer delegated to the subcontractor the duty to keep the subcontractor's own workers safe. That is the rule of Privette, and it is powerful. The injured worker collects comp from his employer, and the larger companies that hired the work argue they owe him nothing in tort. Owners, developers, general contractors, and management companies all raise it, usually at the first real opportunity.
The exception: retained control, actually exercised
The presumption is strong. It is not absolute. The Supreme Court held in Hooker, and refined in Sandoval, that a hirer can be liable when three things are true:
- Retained control. The hirer kept control over the manner in which the injured worker's work was performed, rather than leaving the contractor free to do the job its own way.
- Actual exercise. The hirer did not just hold that control on paper. It used it.
- Affirmative contribution. The hirer's negligent exercise of that control affirmatively contributed to the injury. Passive knowledge of a hazard, or a mere failure to require safety measures, is not enough.
Each element is a question of evidence. Miss one, and Privette controls. Prove all three, and the hirer answers for its own conduct like anyone else.
What retained control looks like on a real job site
Retained control rarely announces itself in a contract. It shows up in how the site actually ran:
- Safety directives. The hirer told the crew how to do the dangerous part of the job, not just to be safe while doing it.
- Supplied equipment. The hirer furnished the lift, the scaffold, the machine, or the power source, and controlled when and how it was used.
- Sequencing. The hirer decided which trades worked where and when, and put one crew in the path of another's operation.
- Site control. The hirer controlled access, energized systems, moving equipment, or traffic through the work area.
The right to inspect, or even to stop unsafe work, is not the same thing. The question is what the hirer actually did, and whether that act helped cause the injury.
Why these cases are pled and proven differently
An ordinary injury case is built around what happened. A retained-control case is built around who decided what happened. The defense will move for summary judgment and argue Privette as a matter of law, so the record has to exist before that motion is filed: the contracts, the site-safety plans, the daily logs, the meeting minutes, the emails that show who gave the orders, and the testimony of the foremen who took them. A complaint that simply alleges the hirer was careless invites the motion. A case built for Hooker and Sandoval from the first week answers it.
Our own worksite result shows what that looks like. The Vertanous Firm obtained a $2.75 Million settlement in a catastrophic-injury matter arising from a worksite injury at an amusement facility, a case referred to us by outside counsel and recognized by TopVerdict among the Top 100 Personal Injury Settlements in California for 2025. It is the case we wrote about in beating the Privette doctrine through two summary-judgment motions.
This is not a claim against your employer
The retained-control exception does not let a worker sue his own employer in tort; workers' compensation generally remains the exclusive remedy there. It is about the other companies on the site. The comp claim and the third-party claim run side by side, and the comp carrier's reimbursement rights are resolved as part of any third-party recovery.
A common example
A drywall installer employed by a subcontractor is working on a commercial build. The general contractor's superintendent orders the electrical crew to energize a panel in the installer's area ahead of schedule, over the subcontractor's objection, and the installer is badly burned. The general contractor argues Privette: it hired the subcontractor, so the subcontractor owned worker safety. The answer is the superintendent's order. The general contractor controlled the sequence of the work, exercised that control, and its decision put live current where a worker was standing. That is an affirmative contribution, and the case goes forward.
For referring counsel
If you are holding a worksite file with a Privette problem, the retained-control analysis should happen before the complaint, not after the motion. We take these cases as co-counsel and on referral, with fee splits handled under Rule 1.5.1. The details are on our attorney referral page.
Frequently asked questions
Can I collect workers' compensation and still sue the general contractor?
Often, yes. Workers' compensation is generally your exclusive remedy against your own employer, not against every other company on the site. A claim against a hirer that negligently exercised retained control is a separate case, and the comp carrier's reimbursement rights are handled as part of any recovery.
Is a safety program or the right to stop the work enough to make the hirer liable?
No. Hiring a contractor, requiring it to follow safety rules, or holding the power to stop unsafe work does not by itself create liability. The evidence must show the hirer actually exercised control over how the work was done, and that the exercise affirmatively contributed to the injury.
Does the exception apply to property owners and developers, or only general contractors?
It can apply to any hirer. Owners, developers, general contractors, and management companies all invoke Privette, and any of them that directed the work and helped cause the injury can face the exception. The question is always what that company did, not what it was called.
Why are these cases usually decided on summary judgment?
Because the defense wants a judge to rule, before any jury hears the facts, that Privette bars the claim. The injured worker survives by producing evidence of retained control, actual exercise, and affirmative contribution. Survive that motion, and the case is usually a real case.
Hurt on a job by a company that wasn't your employer? Talk to us first.
Free, confidential consultation. You will speak directly with Tom Vertanous, in English, Armenian, or Farsi. The Vertanous Firm has recovered more than $60 Million for injured Californians. No fee unless we win. (626) 888-2223.
Request a ConsultationResults depend on the unique facts of each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Responsible for content: Tom Vertanous, Esq., The Vertanous Firm, P.C., SBN 330760, (626) 888-2223.