Ramirez v. Nelson

Summary

The Supreme Court of California held that Penal Code section 385(b) does not establish a special duty of care owed by homeowners to a worker injured while operating equipment near high-voltage power lines. Because the statute could not support a negligence per se theory under Evidence Code section 669 on these facts, the court did not decide whether the worker was the homeowners' employee under Labor Code section 2750.5. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Penal Code section 385(b) does not establish a special duty or standard of care owed by homeowners to an employee or contractor worker who is injured by the worker's own operation of tools near a high-voltage line. The statute therefore could not support negligence per se instructions under Evidence Code section 669, and the trial court properly instructed the jury only on plaintiffs' common law negligence theory.
2. The court did not decide whether the decedent was the homeowners' employee by operation of law under Labor Code section 2750.5 for purposes of tort liability because that question was moot after the court held that Penal Code section 385(b) did not establish a special duty supporting plaintiffs' theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penal Code section 385(b), which criminalizes moving tools or equipment within six feet of a high-voltage overhead conductor, establishes a special duty of care owed by homeowners to a worker injured while violating the statute, such that the plaintiffs were entitled to negligence per se instructions under Evidence Code section 669.
2. Whether the decedent was the homeowners' employee by operation of law under Labor Code section 2750.5 for purposes of imposing vicarious tort liability under Penal Code section 385(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded