Gudino v. Kalkat CA3
Amador Gudino fell to his death while working on the framing of defendant Bhupinder Kalkat’s new house. Gudino’s widow, individually and as guardian ad litem for her children (the heirs), brought suit for damages against Kalkat. Kalkat successfully moved for summary judgment, on the grounds that he had no liability as the employer of an independent contractor under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette) and its progeny, which limit employer liability under certain circumstances, explained post.
On appeal, the heirs contend Privette does not control because Kalkat furnished unsafe equipment--a forklift with defective brakes--that affirmatively contributed to Gudino’s death. They further contend there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Kalkat retained control over safety conditions at the job site and negligently exercised that control.
Comments on Gudino v. Kalkat CA3