Does a Cal-OSHA section mean a general contractor cannot delegate a duty, pursuant to Privette? Cordero v. Ghilotti (2026)

What if you're working on a job site and a worker from the general contractor creates a danger that gets you hurt? Who is at fault? Is anyone negligent with this? Can you seek a claim against the general contractor?

This is all the Privette Doctrine pursuant to California law. And in April 2026, the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One decided Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. which gives further guidance.

One main issue here is whether Cal-OSHA standards create a “nondelegable duty”, such that a general contractor retains control of a dangerous condition. Spoiler: it’s not good for the Plaintiff.

The general law on Privette:

I’ve blogged about Privette before…and will continue to do so, as cases continue to interpret this law.

The Privette Doctrine “applies to any person or entity in the hiring chain.” “…[A]n injured employee of an independent contractor typically cannot sue the contractor that let the subcontract.” But some exceptions apply.

California holds "a strong presumption under California law that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety[,] ... [which] means that a hirer is typically not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its workers while on the job.”

Some exceptions apply. But I'm only going to talk about one here: the Hooker exception, which involved whether the party retained control.

What is the Hooker exception?

It’s all about retaining control.

In general, "[a] hirer retains control for purposes of the Hooker exception ... where it 'retains a sufficient degree of authority over the manner of performance of the work entrusted to the contractor.'" Control "amounts to retained control only if the hirer's exercise of that authority would sufficiently limit the contractor's freedom to perform the contracted work in the contractor's own manner." “[A] hirer will be liable where it exercises retained control over any part of the contractor's work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker's injuries.”

The facts in Cordero:

Plaintiff here argued Cal-OSHA section 1711 (posted below) imposed a “nondelegable” duty on the GC to address a dangerous condition. The dangerous condition here was a water area where the GC laid planks, causing/allowing Plaintiff, a subcontractor, to get his boots wet to then call on a raised area.

I’ll also say from the record the Court lays out, Plaintiff Counsel seems to have done a fine job of eliciting many other strong facts about how the GC retained control of the dangerous condition and job site…although all that did not matter here for the Court unfortunately to Plaintiff.  

Seabright:

So…how does…and have…California Courts decided on this issue of nondelegable duties as they relate to Cal-OSHA? That takes us to the California Supreme Court decision SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, where the Court needed to decide “conflicting views” which “had developed ‘among the Courts of Appeal’” regarding this issue.

And the California Supreme Court “reject[ed] the premise that the tort law duty, if any, that a hirer owes under Cal-OSHA and its regulations to the employees of an independent contractor is nondelegable.” So, parties can delegate nondelegable duties.

The holding here?

The Court here continues to follow Seabright, in saying this:

“Nothing in the language of section 1711 remotely suggests the Board updated it to carve out an exception from SeaBright for ironworkers involved with ‘the use of reinforcing steel assemblies used in the construction of concrete and masonry structures including post-tensioning operations.’ (§ 1711, subd. (a)(1).) Nor is there any such suggestion in the secondary materials Cordero references—specifically, the Board's notice of hearing and its final statement of reasons for the proposed update.’”