Injured While Working for a Subcontractor: Why One California Worker’s Lawsuit Against a Higher-Tier Contractor Was Dismissed
A California Court of Appeal recently published an important workplace injury decision involving a construction worker who was hurt while working on a pedestrian bridge project in Menlo Park. The case, Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc., addresses a recurring question in construction injury cases: when can an injured employee of a subcontractor sue another contractor up the chain for damages beyond workers’ compensation?
The answer, in many cases, is “not easily.” California law gives strong protection to companies that hire independent contractors or subcontractors, unless the injured worker can prove one of the narrow exceptions applies.
The Facts: A Fall During Bridge Construction
Leonardo Cordero worked for Camblin Steel Service, Inc., a subcontractor hired to perform rebar reinforcement work on a pedestrian bridge project in Menlo Park. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. was described as the “turnkey” contractor for the job. The general contractor was Level 10, which had contracted with Ghilotti to provide labor, materials, equipment, detailing, supervision, and related work for a fully functional bridge. Ghilotti then subcontracted the rebar reinforcement work to Camblin.
Under the subcontract, Camblin agreed to provide a safe workplace for its employees, comply with OSHA and Cal/OSHA rules, follow applicable Ghilotti safety procedures, and assume responsibility for site conditions relating to its work.
Before Camblin’s workers began work in the area known as “Bent 10,” Ghilotti personnel performed “dewatering” work. That included pumping standing water, rinsing the footing, cleaning mud around the footing, and leaving planks on the slope to provide access to the work area.
Cordero and other Camblin ironworkers later arrived and began constructing the initial rebar cage around the base of the column. To continue the work, Cordero climbed up the rebar structure. Before he secured his positioning belt, one of his boots slipped, and he fell.
Cordero sued Ghilotti for damages arising from his industrial injury.
The Procedural History: Summary Judgment for Ghilotti
Ghilotti moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the case before trial, arguing the undisputed facts showed it was legally entitled to judgment.
The trial court granted the motion. It ruled the case was barred by the Privette doctrine, a California rule that often prevents injured employees of independent contractors or subcontractors from suing the person or company that hired their employer. Cordero appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Ghilotti.
The Privette Doctrine: Why Workers’ Compensation Often Limits These Claims
The central legal rule in the case is the Privette doctrine, named after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Privette v. Superior Court. The doctrine creates a strong presumption that when a hirer brings in an independent contractor, the hirer delegates responsibility for workplace safety to that contractor. As the Court of Appeal explained, this generally means a hirer is not liable for injuries sustained by the contractor’s workers while on the job.
The doctrine is tied to the workers’ compensation system. When an employee is injured at work, workers’ compensation is usually the employee’s exclusive remedy against their own employer. The California Supreme Court has reasoned that it would often be unfair to allow an employee of a subcontractor to recover workers’ compensation benefits from the employer and then also recover full tort damages from the company that hired the subcontractor, especially where the hirer likely paid for the cost of workers’ compensation indirectly through the contract price.
This does not mean every third-party claim is barred. But it does mean the injured worker must fit within a recognized exception.
Cordero’s First Argument: Cal/OSHA Created a Nondelegable Duty
Cordero first argued the Privette doctrine should not apply because a Cal/OSHA regulation imposed a nondelegable duty on Ghilotti to address the site conditions that allegedly caused his fall. Specifically, he relied on a Construction Safety Order dealing with reinforcing steel and post-tensioning in concrete work, California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 1711.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The court relied heavily on the California Supreme Court’s decision in SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. In SeaBright, the Supreme Court held that a hirer generally delegates to the independent contractor any tort-law duty the hirer may have under Cal/OSHA regulations to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. That delegation includes the duty to identify and address hazards covered by Cal/OSHA.
Cordero tried to distinguish SeaBright by arguing the specific regulation here, section 1711, placed responsibility on a “Controlling Contractor.” The Court of Appeal was not persuaded. It found nothing in the language or regulatory history of section 1711 showing an intent to carve out an exception to SeaBright or to override the Privette doctrine for ironworkers involved in reinforcing steel work.
That part of the decision is important. A Cal/OSHA regulation may help define workplace safety standards, but under this line of cases, the existence of a regulation does not automatically allow an injured subcontractor employee to sue a higher-tier contractor.
Cordero’s Second Argument: Ghilotti Did Not Actually Delegate Safety
Cordero next argued that, as a factual matter, Ghilotti did not delegate workplace safety to Camblin. He pointed to evidence that Ghilotti had safety responsibilities under its own contract, performed grading and related work, inspected the site in the morning, dewatered the Bent 10 area, and expected subcontractors to contact Ghilotti about site condition problems.
The Court of Appeal held this evidence did not prevent the Privette presumption from applying.
The key facts were undisputed that Ghilotti hired Camblin, Camblin was an independent subcontractor, Cordero worked for Camblin, and Cordero was injured while performing the work Camblin was hired to do. Those facts were enough to trigger the Privette presumption.
The court explained Cordero’s evidence might be relevant to whether an exception applied, but it did not stop the presumption from arising in the first place.
The Retained Control Exception: A Narrow Path for Injured Workers
Cordero also argued that even if the Privette doctrine applied, the retained control exception allowed his case to proceed.
This exception comes from Hooker v. Department of Transportation. It applies when the hirer retains control over part of the contractor’s work and actually exercises that control in a way that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury.
That is a demanding standard. It is not enough to show the hirer knew about an unsafe condition, or that the hirer had general safety authority. It is not even enough to show the hirer could have corrected a dangerous condition. The injured worker must show something more, such as the hirer directing the contractor to perform the work in a particular unsafe way, interfering with the contractor’s own safety decisions, requiring the contractor to use defective equipment, blocking a necessary safety precaution, or promising to fix a known hazard and failing to follow through.
Here, the Court of Appeal found no evidence Ghilotti controlled how Camblin performed the rebar work. There was no evidence Ghilotti told Camblin how to do the steel reinforcing work, interfered with Camblin’s means and methods, or prevented Camblin from deciding how to perform the work safely.
Even if Ghilotti did a poor job dewatering the area, the court held that would not be enough. Under the Privette cases, a hirer may be responsible for the presence of a hazard and still avoid liability if the subcontractor remained free to address the hazard and decide how to perform the work safely.
The court summarized the rule bluntly: a hirer does not become liable merely by permitting or failing to correct an unsafe work condition.
The Decision: Judgment Affirmed
The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ghilotti. It held the Privette presumption applied, the Cal/OSHA regulation did not create a nondelegable duty avoiding Privette, and the retained control exception did not apply on the facts presented.
What This Means for California Workers
For employees, especially construction workers, this decision is a reminder of how difficult it can be to bring a civil lawsuit against a company higher up the contracting chain after a workplace injury. Workers’ compensation may still provide benefits, but a separate lawsuit for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or full tort damages often faces major legal barriers.
That does not mean injured workers have no rights. The details still matter. A third-party claim may be viable if another company actively directed the unsafe work, interfered with safety precautions, supplied defective equipment, concealed a hazard, or made and broke a specific safety promise. But the worker needs evidence of more than general control over the jobsite or failure to fix a dangerous condition.
For workers, the practical lesson is to document what happened as soon as possible. Who gave instructions? Who controlled the work area? Was a specific safety concern raised? Did someone promise to fix it? Did the hirer require the work to continue despite a known hazard? Those facts can determine whether a case falls within a narrow exception or is barred before trial.
For employers, contractors, and subcontractors, the case reinforces the importance of clear contracts, clear safety responsibilities, and careful jobsite practices. But it also shows that contractual safety language and jobsite preparation work do not automatically create tort liability to a subcontractor’s employee unless the hirer’s conduct crosses the line into retained control that affirmatively contributes to the injury.
Bottom Line
Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. is a worker injury case, but its holding favors the contractor defendant. The Court of Appeal applied California’s Privette doctrine strictly and refused to expand liability based on Cal/OSHA regulations, general safety responsibilities, or Ghilotti’s work preparing the site.
For injured workers, the case illustrates a hard truth: proving a workplace injury occurred is not enough to sue every company involved in the project. The worker must also prove the defendant owed a legal duty that was not delegated away, or that a recognized exception to Privette applies. In California construction injury cases, that is often the central battleground.
Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. was filed on March 18, 2026, and certified for publication on April 10, 2026, by the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, Case No. A173024. The judgment was affirmed, with the court holding that the Privette doctrine barred Cordero’s claims against Ghilotti because the Cal/OSHA regulation did not create a nondelegable duty avoiding Privette, and the retained control exception did not apply on the facts presented.