Defendants’ Summary Judgment Obtained Where Handyman Falls Off Ladder at Defendants’ Home
On August 7, 2026, in the San Diego County Superior Court, Edye Hill secured a summary judgment victory against a Plaintiff who fell off a ladder while working at Defendants’ home. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for 1) General Negligence; 2) Premise Liability; 3) Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant To California Labor Code §§ 3700 & 3706; 4) Negligence Per Se; and 5) Loss of Consortium. After taking over the defense from prior counsel, Macdonald & Cody, LLP completed and successfully argued the summary judgment motion, securing a favorable judgment for the Defendants.
Plaintiff owned and operated his own handyman business. He testified that his handyman work did not require a contractor’s license. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was using a ladder to patch areas of the garage ceiling at Defendants’ home. Plaintiff lost his balance and fell from the ladder while working. The ladder was owned by Plaintiff. The work Plaintiff was hired to perform was expected to be completed within two to three hours. Plaintiff provided Defendants with an invoice for two hours of work and mileage, totaling $106.00.
The Court agreed with Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff was excluded from workers’ compensation coverage under Labor Code section and was not entitled to benefits, including the presumption of employer negligence under Labor Code section 3351 because a handyman performing work at a residential property is a residential employee.
For General Negligence, Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked evidence to establish that Defendants owed a duty, breached any duty, or caused the incident. The Court concurred, finding no evidence attributing Plaintiff’s alleged injuries to any alleged breach of duty or causation by Defendants. Ultimately the Court found that Plaintiff’s use of his own ladder, Plaintiff’s placement of the ladder, and Plaintiff’s balance were the proximate causes of Plaintiff’s fall.
Regarding the Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant to California Labor Code sections §§ 3700 & 3706, Defendants argued that Plaintiff was not an employee because he worked fewer than 52 hours. Defense Counsel was able to overcome the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 2750.5 that a worker performing services requiring a license is presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor because Plaintiff worked for only two hours. Because Plaintiff not being an employee, Defendants were not required to provide workers’ compensation insurance.
Under the Negligence Per Se cause of action, defense counsel argued that Plaintiff fell within the handyman exemption from licensing requirements because the project had a contract price of less than $500 and the work performed on the garage was considered minor. Defendants’ further argued that the failure to obtain a contractor’s license was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that the lack of workers’ compensation insurance coverage was the proximate cause of the accident or that workers’ compensation coverage would have prevented Plaintiff from falling off the ladder.
Finally, defense counsel argued that Defendants were not liable for the Loss of Consortium claim because Defendants were not liable for the incident. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to prevail on the derivative claim because the underlying injury claim against the Defendants was unsuccessful.