What if you're working on a job site and a worker from the general contractor creates a danger that gets you hurt? Who is at fault? Is anyone negligent with this? Can you seek a claim against the general contractor? This is all the Privette Doctrine pursuant to California law. And in April 2026, the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One decided Cordero v. Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. which gives further guidance. One main issue here is whether Cal-OS

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 delegat

Matthews v. Ryan, 118 Cal.App.5th 155 (filed 1/28/26) — Part 2 In Part 1 (see here), I discussed whether a 998 offer that conditions acceptance on the defendant's insurance carrier consenting is invalid. Spoiler: the Court said no, it's redundant, but not invalid. Now with Part 2 of Matthews v. Ryan: the reasonableness of a 998 offer. Before I get into the case, let’s do a quick review of Part I: Scenario: you serve a 998 at or below what you think the case is worth. Defendan