Vargas: The Next Step In The ‘Peculiar' Evolution

In the recent decision Vargas v. FMI, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 638, plaintiff Vargas and Villalobos were a two-man team driving a tractor-trailer cross country. Shortly into the journey, with Villalobos driving and plaintiff asleep in the sleeper berth, Villalobos fell asleep at the wheel and the tractor-trailer rolled over, injuring plaintiff. Plaintiff sued (1) the motor carrier and trailer owner, (2) the tractor owner, (3) the tractor owner's principal, and (4) Villalobos. The trial court granted the motor carrier's/trailer owner's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not vicariously liable for plaintiff's injuries as the hirer of an independent contractor, pursuant to Privette v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, and its progeny, including SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, which recognized that there was an implied and presumed delegation of workplace safety in contracts entered into between hirers and independent contractors, which in turn meant that the hirer would not be vicariously liable for injuries to independent contractors' employees, unless certain factors were present as outlined by the Privette line of cases.

Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that as a federally-licensed motor carrier, the motor carrier/trailer owner had a non-delegable duty of care to plaintiff and was vicariously liable for Villalobos' negligence. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that "[a]lthough SeaBright holds that a hirer presumptively delegates to an independent contractor any tort law duties it owes to the contractor's employees to ensure workplace safety, it says that the presumption may be overcome if 'the relevant statutes or regulations indicate an intent to limit the application of Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th 689, or preclude delegation of the tort law duty, if any, that the hirer owes to the contractor's employees.'" (Vargas, supra, 233 Cal.App. 4th at p. 654.) Thus, Vargas held that the proper analysis of SeaBright, and thus the Privette line of cases, involves "review [of] the pertinent statutes and regulations to determine whether they preclude the applicability of the Privette doctrine and prohibit delegation of the hirer's tort law duty in the particular case...."

Ultimately, the Vargas court held that the Federal Motor Carrier Act indicated an intent to preclude delegation of the tort law duty that motor carriers owe to independent-contractor drivers, resulting in the motor carrier/trailer...