California Court of Appeal

In a personal injury action arising from a construction accident, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's contention that the defendants were required to comply with OSHA requirements fails as a matter of law because they were not plaintiff's employer; and 2) to the extent plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable as homeowners on a concealed danger theory, defendants had no duty to inspect the roof for 'soft spots' in order to ensure the safety of the workers as a matter of law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/02/2009
• Published 09/02/2009

Judges

• SUZUKAWA, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Homampour Law Firm, Arash Homampour;  and Stuart Sherman for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Early, Maslach & Van Dueck, Los Angeles, John C. Notti, Paul A. Carron, and James Grafton Randall;  Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robert A. Olson, and Alana H. Rotter, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.