Taking Responsibility: Who’s At Fault? Lorenzo Court Says Everyone

A recent court ruling raises questions and concerns over the scope of liability owners and contractors may face when a subcontractor's employee is involved in an off-site accident during the course of construction. While shared liability is not uncommon when an accident takes place on the job site, this case is unique for two key reasons: (1) the breadth of the scope of liability and (2) the fact that the accident occured off-site.

In Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., a dump truck driver employed by a fourth-tier subcontractor on a construction project struck and killed two young children when he was driving to work from his home. The accident occurred several miles from the construction project, near an off-site staging area for hauling trucks. The driver of the dump truck was ultimately convicted of vehicular manslaughter, and the parents of the children (Plaintiffs) sued the driver, his employer, and everyone else up the project chain.

The flow chart above illustrates just how far liability extended according to California’s Second District Court of Appeal. Randle, the driver, caused the accident, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of the two children. According to the Court of Appeal, the project owner, general contractor, and the excavation subcontractor are all liable for the driver’s actions.

Background

The project owner represented to the City of Los Angeles that all dump trucks would be staged on-site at the construction project, with no more than 20 trucks present at a time. The City then granted an excavation permit on that basis, with the condition that staging would be on-site only. The trucking excavation subcontractor, in contravention of the permit, set up an off-site staging area miles from the construction project. On the day of the accident, the excavation trucking subcontractor ordered 90 dump trucks to the unpermitted staging area. Of note, the driver was driving from his home to the unpermitted staging area when the accident took place. According to Plaintiffs, the decision to establish an unpermitted staging area requiring dump trucks to maneuver through pedestrian-heavy streets was negligent, and led to the death of the two children.

The project owner, the general contractor, and the excavation subcontractor (collectively, “Defendants”) filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds of no legal duty or proximate cause for Plaintiffs’ loss. The trial court granted the motions and held that the Defendants did not owe a duty of care to the decedents. On appeal, the Second District reversed the decision in what has been considered a shocking and somewhat controversial ruling.

On appeal, however, the questions presented were whether there was an applicable duty of care, and if so, did the Rowland factors justify an exception to that duty.

Analysis

California Civil Code Section 1714 establishes a general rule of duty, that each person has a duty to exercise, in his or her activities, reasonable care for the safety of others. The Supreme Court has recognized, however, that sometimes public policy concerns may outweigh the broad principle of section 1714 and has provided a series of factors – the “Rowland¹ factors” – for courts to consider when deciding whether to apply such an exemption.

As to the first question, the Court of Appeal concluded that Defendants did owe Plaintiffs a general duty of care, holding that “[i]t is common sense that sending large numbers of heavy construction vehicles down [the streets of downtown Los Angeles] creates a risk of harm to those other vehicles and pedestrians².”

As to the second question, regarding whether the Rowland factors justify an exception to the duty of care, the Court of Appeal held that the Rowland foreseeability factors weigh against an exception to the duty. Although the Court acknowledged that this analysis is case and fact specific, the Court reasoned that even if the Defendants’ role in establishing an unpermitted staging site was not negligent, or did not proximately cause the accident, this still does not justify establishing a general rule absolving all developers and contractors of a duty of care to pedestrians struck by construction vehicles driving to an unpermitted staging area.

One judge issued a dissent, vehemently disagreeing with the holding, explaining that although he agrees that in managing a construction project, and in locating a staging area for construction vehicles, there should be the general rule that each person has a duty to use ordinary care and is liable for injuries caused by his or her failure to exercise reasonable care in those circumstances. The dissenting judge disagreed, however, with the Court’s analysis of the Rowland factors and in holding that the Defendants owed a duty to protect pedestrians from the risk of being struck by a negligently driven construction vehicle on its way to an unpermitted staging area.

The dissent explained that whether the staging occurred at the off-site or on-site location, large numbers of heavy construction vehicles were still going to be traveling through downtown Los Angeles streets. So while the driver may not have encountered the two children if the staging area had been established on-site, he and other truck drivers would still have had to travel to the staging area by driving through crowded downtown city streets, exposing pedestrians to the risk of being struck by a negligent truck driver. In other words, the operation of the off-site staging area was no more blameworthy than the operation of an on-site staging area.

Lessons Learned

The Court’s decision to hold the project owner, the general contractor, and the excavation trade subcontractor liable for the actions of the driver was an overreach. While the Court’s ruling in this case is certainly an outlier, it is important to be cognizant of this case moving forward.

Key takeaways from this decision: 

• Project participants, from subcontractors to the owner/developer may have to ask questions and be more critical of someone else’s means and methods. This is not common practice, as the majority of contracts have provisions making it clear that each entity performing work on a project is responsible for their own means and methods. After all, why would a general contractor or project owner be involved in the manner by which trucks are driven to the project site? Clearly, this Court found a way to make that connection happen.
• Project participants should increase risk mitigation measures at the front end in light of this ruling. For example, follow up with all subcontractors and sub-tiers to ensure you are covered through their insurance policies as an additional insured. Also, double check your own policies and consider the unfortunate reality that instead of a $1-2 million policy, a policy with greater limits – if possible – might be a better idea given today’s litigious atmosphere.
• Owners and contractors should communicate (and over-communicate) with project staff and those in charge of site safety – and do so early. Making sure they are taking additional steps for their own risk mitigation measures is key, especially when a project is one that requires the hauling of heavy construction vehicles and equipment.

More likely than not, this is not the end of the road for this case. It would not be surprising if one or more of the parties (i.e. the insurers) seeks review in the state’s Supreme Court. 

¹ The Rowland factors may be summarized as follows: (1) foreseeability of harm, (2) degree of certainty of injury; (3) closeness of connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, (4) moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, (5) policy of preventing future harm, (6) burden to the defendant and consequences to the community, (7) availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.

² Lorenzo v. Calex (2025) WL 942564 at *10.

[View source.]