The employee of a carrier hired by a broker to transport cargo across state lines sued the broker for negligence in not protecting him from harm.  California law presumes that a person (here, the broker) who hires an independent contractor (here, the carrier) owes no duty of care to the employees of that independent contractor for the injuries those employees suffer while working for the independent contractor.  (Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc. (2021) 12 Cal.5th 256, 269, 270 (Sandoval).)  The trial court granted summary judgment to the broker on this ground.  In this appeal, the employee argues that the broker has a nondelegable duty to protect the carrier’s employees and that the broker actually exercised control over the carrier’s transportation of cargo.  Because the undisputed evidence indicates that the broker did not perform any duties of a carrier and did not actually exercise any control over the carrier’s transport of the cargo, the trial court correctly determined that there were no triable issues of fact and properly granted summary judgment.  We further hold that the test applicable in determining whether a broker is strictly liable for property damage to cargo—which turns on whether the broker holds itself out as a carrier, as set forth in Essex Insurance Company v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc. (11th Cir. 2018) 885 F.3d 1292 (Essex)—is irrelevant to the question of liability for personal injury to an independent contractor’s employees under California law.  We accordingly affirm the judgment in favor of the broker.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B342355.PDF