How do California Courts assess a “concealed danger” in a danger floor or negligent premises case, regarding Privette?

In December 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, decided Andrews v. Wagner, cited as 116 Cal.App.5th 766.

The main issue was the Privette Doctrine. Privette is a particular legal argument when there is a danger premises, and where someone is hurt arguably by a contractor or subcontractor’s negligence.

Citing Andrews, the law generally with Privette gives a “…strong presumption under California law that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. This means that a hirer is typically not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its workers while on the job.”

Andrews dealt partially with whether the danger was a “concealed hazard”, which is an exception to Privette per the case Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659.

And that’s what I’ll focus on for this blog. Spoiler: the Court found this danger was not a concealed hazard.

First, the general law re concealed hazard:

A landowner “cannot effectively delegate to the contractor responsibility for the safety of its employees if it fails to disclose critical information needed to fulfill that responsibility, and therefore the landowner would be liable to the contractor’s employee if the employee’s injury is attributable to an undisclosed hazard.”

“[T]he hirer as landowner may be independently liable to the contractor’s employee, ... if (1) [the landowner] knows or reasonably should know of a concealed, preexisting hazardous condition on its premises; (2) the contractor does not know and could not reasonably ascertain the condition; and (3) the landowner fails to warn the contractor.”

The facts in Andrews:

First, the basic facts and then I’ll give the concealed hazard.

Plaintiff (Andrews) “as an independent field inspector, was assigned to perform the inspection. His job was to assess the property’s general condition, document safety issues, and identify potential risks regarding structural issues. His duties also included photographing the condition of the home and preparing a written report, which would be used by the homeowners’ insurance carrier to determine renewal rates and levels of coverage.”

“On the date of the incident, Andrews arrived at Wagner’s residence, introduced himself, and conducted the inspection of the interior of the home. He then accessed the property’s backyard through the kitchen door, which Wagner closed behind him. Andrews did not ask Wagner about the backyard and she did not tell him anything about it. Wagner did not exercise any control over Andrews’s work or provide him with any tools or supplies. Andrews conducted the inspection based on his sole discretion.”

“In the backyard, there were steps built into the ground made out of wooden railroad ties. Andrews did not specifically look at the steps, but knew they were there “peripherally.” He was admittedly not paying attention to where he was stepping, and as a result, he fell down the stairs and was injured. Andrews conceded that had he looked down, he would have seen the steps, which were in plain sight, and likely would not have fallen. He did not know what he had slipped on and speculated that it may have been water or moss. He did not inspect the stairs and claimed the only way to do so would have been to get down on his hands and knees.”

The concealed hazard:

“Wagner had allegedly told her gardener 10 years prior to the accident that the steps would sometimes get slippery, and…the gardener claimed he occasionally noticed the steps were slippery when wet, they sometimes had moss when damp, and he had warned his workers to be careful of slipping on the ties in wet conditions.”

The decision in Andrews:

The trial court held in favor of Defendants regarding a motion for summary judgment, in part regarding the issue of this hazard was not a concealed hazard.

The Court here says this: “there is no evidence that the steps were a concealed hazard or that [Defendant] Wagner knew or should have known that they were unsafe. Indeed, by [Plaintiff] Andrews’s own admission, the steps were in plain sight, it was his job to be conscientious about the environment, and had he looked down, he likely would not have fallen.”

A quick note important to personal injury claims:

This case is a Privette case. But Defense’s arguments may apply to all danger premises cases. Smart Defendants may take the approach it was either YOUR fault for falling (meaning, you were not looking were you were going, you were distracted, you were carrying something, etc.), or you could not or did not prove the danger was known or an actual danger.

It may be tough to do if you’re hurt, because usually when you’re hurt, you’re just thinking about the pain. But if able, it may be good to document the scene as much as possible, as the case and facts still need to be proven to hold a Defendant (or really, their insurance companies) accountable. And Defendants (again, and insurance companies) love to hide behind an attempted shield of “you can’t prove it.”