Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
Phoenix
Reno
Denver
North San Diego
Dallas
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 2033 N. Main St. Suite 600, Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 2525 West Frye Rd Suite 200 Chandler, AZ 85224
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1999 Broadway, Suite 3250, Denver, Colorado 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #220 Encinitas, CA 92024
(949) 221-1000 (949) 221-1001 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201

BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato and Associate Joseph Real on Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment for their Client!

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against BWB&O’s client, a general contractor of a multi-level construction project.  Plaintiff was injured after a fall at the construction project and filed suit against BWB&O’s client and another subcontractor. 

Plaintiff alleged BWB&O’s client was negligent and was responsible for causing Plaintiff’s fall.  BWB&O filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing under the Privette Doctrine and its progeny, it neither owed nor breached any duty to Plaintiff and that no exception to the doctrine applied. Under the Privette Doctrine, when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to provide work or services, and one of the contractor’s employees is injured on the job, the hirer is generally not liable to the employee. 

Plaintiff opposed the motion but failed to meet its burden. The Court ultimately agreed that there were no triable issues of material fact with regard to the Privette Doctrine, and neither the retained control exception nor the concealed hazard exception applied to BWB&O’s client.  As a matter of law, the Court held BWB&O’s client owed no duty to Plaintiff and thus, breached no duty and granted its Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety! 

Please join us in congratulating Courtney and Joseph on this amazing result for their client!