Fernandez v. Lawson
71 P.3d 779, 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422, 31 Cal.4th 31 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Non-commercial tree trimming performed at a private residence constitutes a "household domestic service" and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), even if the homeowner is deemed the statutory employer of an unlicensed contractor.
Facts:
- Traman and Galle Lawson hired Eliseo Lascano, doing business as Anthony’s Tree Service (ATS), to trim a 50-foot palm tree in their yard for $450.
- California law requires a contractor's license to trim trees measuring 15 feet or more.
- The Lawsons were not aware that a contractor's license was required for the job.
- Neither ATS nor its employee, Miguel Fernandez, possessed the required contractor's license.
- Miguel Fernandez had worked for ATS for two years and had several years of experience trimming trees.
- While trimming the Lawsons' tree, Fernandez fell and sustained serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Miguel Fernandez sought workers’ compensation benefits from Traman and Galle Lawson, but the claim was denied by their homeowner's insurer because Fernandez had not worked the minimum hours required to be a statutory employee for that purpose.
- Fernandez then filed a civil suit against the Lawsons in trial court for damages, alleging violations of OSHA safety regulations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Lawsons, finding that OSHA did not apply.
- Fernandez appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that trimming a 50-foot tree was not a 'household domestic service' as a matter of law and that OSHA could apply.
- The Lawsons (appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the Court of Appeal's decision, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) apply to a homeowner who hires a person for non-commercial tree trimming, where the homeowner is deemed a statutory employer solely because the person hired was an unlicensed contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. The California Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not apply because non-commercial tree trimming at a private residence falls within the 'household domestic service' exception to the Act's definition of 'employment.' Labor Code section 6303, subdivision (b) explicitly excludes 'household domestic service' from OSHA's reach. The court reasoned that the term has historically been understood broadly to include services performed in and around a residence, such as gardening and, by extension, tree trimming. Furthermore, public policy and practical considerations make it highly unlikely the Legislature intended the complex OSHA regulatory scheme to apply to homeowners who are ill-equipped to understand or comply with its specialized requirements. Imposing such liability on homeowners for a non-commercial task violates basic notions of fairness and notice. The court rejected the appellate court's skill-based test as it would create 'massive uncertainty' for homeowners.
Concurring - Brown, J.
Justice Brown agrees with the majority's conclusion that OSHA does not apply, but writes separately to argue that the underlying legal precedent making the homeowner a statutory employer in the first place was wrongly decided. He contends that Labor Code section 2750.5, which deems a hirer the employer of an unlicensed contractor, was not intended to apply to homeowners performing non-commercial projects. Applying it in this context unfairly exposes unsuspecting homeowners to a wide array of employer liabilities they are not equipped to handle. He argues that the Legislature should amend the statute to clarify its intent and prevent such 'anomalous results.'
Analysis:
This decision provides significant protection to homeowners by creating a clear, categorical exemption from OSHA for non-commercial tree trimming. It resolves a conflict among the Courts of Appeal by establishing that such activities are a 'household domestic service,' thus shielding homeowners from the complex and burdensome safety regulations designed for commercial enterprises. The ruling prevents the unfair outcome where a homeowner who inadvertently hires an unlicensed contractor is suddenly thrust into the role of a regulated employer. This creates certainty and avoids a case-by-case analysis of a homeowner's skills, which the court found unworkable and unpredictable.
