California Homeowner May Be Liable For Injuries Suffered By Unlicensed Contractor

An article on Construction Web Links (a construction industry newsletter),which serves as a reminder that it might not be a good idea to hire unlicensed contractors when contracting for home improvement and repair work, reports the following fact pattern which took place in California and to which California law applies:

• A homeowner hired his neighbor, an unlicensed roofing contractor, to replace the roof on his house. The parties agreed on a set price, and the roofer immediately began work. After only four hours of work, the roofer fell from the roof and was injured. The roofer filed a personal injury suit against the homeowner for negligence in failing to provide proper safety protection and equipment for the job. The roofer claimed he was an employee of homeowner, and because homeowner did not have worker’s compensation insurance, the roofer was entitled to bring a civil action to recover for damages he sustained from the fall.

Question: Can an unlicensed contractor have a legitimate basis for suing a California homeowner in the above case?

According to the article, the answer is yes:

• [The court] held that although the roofer was not an employee for purpose of the worker’s compensation law, he was an employee for purposes of tort liability under California law providing that an unlicensed worker performing services for which a license is required is not an independent contractor but an employee.

For more, see California Homeowner Subject to Suit by Unlicensed Contractor for Injuries Suffered on the Job.

For the case itself, see Mendoza v. Brodeur, 142 Cal.App.4th 72 (2006).

For an earlier post in which the California homeowner got the upper hand over the unlicensed contractor hired for home improvements, see Court Hammers Contractor In Dispute With Homeowners; Results In Free Home Improvements & More.