Kinsman v. Unocal
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 3/1/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RAY KINSMAN et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) v. ) ) UNOCAL CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ___________________________________ ) S118561 Ct.App. 1/3 A093424/A093649 Super. Ct. of City and County of San Francisco No. 308646 MODIFICATION OF OPINION THE COURT: The opinion filed in this matter on December 19, 2005, is modified as follows: In the second sentence of the paragraph spanning pages 680-681 of 37 Cal.4th, the word automatically is inserted between not and liable, so that the sentence modified will read: We agree in the abstract that a landowner that does not retain control is not automatically liable for an injury inflicted by an independent contractor or its employees on the employee of another independent contractor. In the next to the last textual sentence of that same paragraph, the text following the words similar conclusion: is modified to read: that, as at common law, the hirer/landowner who has not retained control over the work, and who was not itself actually on notice of a concealed hazardous condition that causes injury, should not be derivatively or vicariously liable . . . . The modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
