A California Supreme Court employer liability case decided in 2011, Cortez v. Abich, changed how injured workers on residential remodeling projects can hold homeowners accountable. An injured worker fell and fractured his spine when a roof he was demolishing collapsed on a home remodeling project. The homeowner had acted as the owner-builder, pulled the permit, and hired several trade contractors, including an unlicensed contractor whose employee was the injured worker. After the accident, that unlicensed contractor disappeared. The reasoning in this decision still matters today for anyone hurt while working on a home improvement or remodeling project in California.
2011
Year the California Supreme Court decided the case
51 Cal.4th 285
Published citation attorneys still rely on today
2750.5
Labor Code section that can make a homeowner the legal employer
The injured worker was seriously hurt while working on a residential remodeling project. The homeowner had purchased the home and acted as the owner-builder, pulling the permit herself and hiring multiple trade contractors, including an unlicensed contractor to handle roof demolition. The injured worker was an employee of that unlicensed contractor. While demolishing the roof, the structure collapsed, and he fell, fracturing his spine. The unlicensed contractor who had hired him disappeared after the accident, leaving him with essentially no direct recourse against his actual employer.
Under California Labor Code section 2750.5, when an unlicensed contractor is hired to perform work requiring a license, the law presumes that the person who hired the unlicensed contractor is legally the employer of that contractor's workers. The lower courts had already found, and this finding was not challenged before the Supreme Court, that the homeowner was deemed the injured worker's employer under this presumption because she had hired an unlicensed contractor to perform roof demolition work.
Because significant remodeling work falls within Cal-OSHA's coverage rather than its household exemption, the ruling gives injured workers several practical tools.
Evidence that a homeowner or owner-builder failed to implement basic safety measures required under Cal-OSHA standards, such as fall protection, proper scaffolding, or a documented safety program, can be introduced in a later civil negligence or wrongful death case as evidence of the applicable standard of care and its breach.
When a homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor for work requiring a license, the owner can be deemed the legal employer under Labor Code section 2750.5, which opens a direct claim against the person who commissioned the work.
Workers for unlicensed contractors who vanish or carry no insurance often assume they have no recovery. This ruling gives them a meaningful path to hold the property owner accountable when that owner is the presumed legal employer.
Together these points give an injured worker a foundation for a claim even when the actual employer cannot be found.
The narrow but significant question was whether California's occupational safety regulations, specifically the Cal-OSHA exemption for household domestic service found in Labor Code section 6303(b), excused a homeowner acting as an owner-builder from Cal-OSHA safety standards during a significant remodeling project. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the exemption applied, meaning Cal-OSHA violations could not even be introduced as evidence of negligence. The California Supreme Court disagreed, holding that substantial remodeling work involving demolition, rebuilding, and structural changes is not household domestic service, even when undertaken by a homeowner purely for personal, non-commercial enjoyment of the property. The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The published opinion is Cortez v. Abich, 51 Cal.4th 285 (2011).
This decision is a published California Supreme Court opinion interpreting the reach of Cal-OSHA in residential remodeling, not a trial verdict or a reported damages award. It shapes how later injured workers frame liability against homeowners who act as owner-builders. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and each case depends on its own facts. The Homampour Law Firm handles worker injury cases involving unlicensed contractors and homeowner liability on a contingency fee basis, advancing the costs of the case, so injured workers pay nothing unless there is a recovery.
The breakdowns below cover residential employer liability under Labor Code 2750.5, Cal-OSHA violations and negligence per se, how the precedent has been applied by later courts, and homeowner construction remodel liability under Privette.
Homeowner as employer under 2750.5
Cal-OSHA violations and negligence per se
We try catastrophic worker injury cases involving unlicensed contractors and homeowner liability as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseThe Court held that significant residential remodeling work, such as demolition and structural rebuilding, does not fall within Cal-OSHA's household domestic service exemption, meaning Cal-OSHA safety standards apply even when the work is done for a homeowner's personal enjoyment through an owner-builder arrangement.
Under Labor Code section 2750.5, hiring an unlicensed contractor to perform work requiring a license creates a legal presumption that the hiring party, in this case the homeowner, is the employer of that contractor's workers.
Yes. Following this decision, Cal-OSHA violations occurring during covered remodeling work can be introduced as evidence of the applicable standard of care and its breach in a later negligence or wrongful death claim.
