## Facts

- Richard Rodriguez, an employee of Orvin Engineering Company, worked on a construction project at McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s Long Beach facility involving installation of a piping system.
- Norman Engineering Company acted as general contractor responsible for coordination; Bethlehem Steel Corporation performed subcontract work that included fabricating and installing pipe-hanging supports and related hardware.
- A heavy pipe assembly (about 630 pounds) was suspended overhead; the support system failed and the pipe fell on Rodriguez, causing severe and permanent injuries.
- Rodriguez sued multiple entities involved in the project; his wife sued for loss of consortium. Orvin was not sued directly because workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy against the employer.
- The State Compensation Insurance Fund paid workers’ compensation benefits to Rodriguez and intervened to seek reimbursement from third-party tortfeasors.
- After a lengthy jury trial, the jury found Norman and Bethlehem liable and also found Orvin 10% at fault despite its immunity from direct tort liability.
- The trial court then tried cross-complaints (by stipulation without a jury) and entered indemnity and contribution judgments among Norman, Bethlehem, Orvin, and others; it also reduced Rodriguez’s recovery to account for workers’ compensation payments while preserving the Fund’s reimbursement rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Rodriguez’s contributory negligence due to lack of substantial supporting evidence.
2. Whether general (broad) express indemnity clauses required Bethlehem and Orvin to indemnify Norman for liability attributable to Norman’s own passive negligence.
3. Whether Norman’s negligence was properly characterized as passive (e.g., failure to inspect/supervise) rather than active participation in the events causing the pipe to fall.
4. Whether the damages award was excessive and whether reducing the judgment by workers’ compensation benefits, while allowing the compensation carrier reimbursement, was proper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments in relevant part.
- The trial court properly refused a contributory-negligence instruction because there was no substantial evidence that Rodriguez acted unreasonably for his own protection.
- The court upheld indemnity in favor of Norman against Bethlehem and Orvin under general indemnity clauses because Norman’s negligence was passive, consisting primarily of failure to inspect rather than active causation.
- The damages award was upheld as supported by the evidence and not the product of passion or prejudice.
- The trial court’s reduction of the plaintiffs’ recovery by workers’ compensation benefits, together with the compensation carrier’s reimbursement from the third-party recovery, was approved as consistent with the workers’ compensation scheme.

## Legal Principles

- A contributory-negligence instruction may be given only if substantial evidence shows the plaintiff engaged in conduct falling below the standard required for self-protection.
- Under California contract indemnity doctrine, a general indemnity clause may shift losses caused by the indemnitee’s passive negligence, but ordinarily does not cover the indemnitee’s active negligence absent clear contractual language.
- “Passive” negligence includes nonfeasance such as failure to inspect or supervise; “active” negligence involves affirmative participation in the negligent act producing the injury.
- In third-party actions arising from workplace injuries, workers’ compensation payments may be accounted for to prevent double recovery while preserving the compensation carrier’s statutory reimbursement rights against tort recoveries.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and allocation rulings arising from a construction-site injury, holding that contributory-negligence instructions require substantial supporting evidence, that general indemnity provisions can cover an indemnitee’s passive negligence, and that workers’ compensation offsets and carrier reimbursement may be implemented to prevent double recovery while allocating ultimate financial responsibility among responsible parties.


Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 87 Cal. App. 3d 626 (Ct. App. 1978)