This is a good decision, but it shouldn’t have had to go to the the State Supreme Court. If I hire a company – licensed or not – to do work for me they are responsible for their employees. Otherwise I’d do the work myself or hire people directly.
Yet again, a Court of Appeals tried to impose their brand of socialism on a case after a jury found for the homeowner. Whether the contractor was licensed, insured or not, the homeowners had no negligence. The plaintiffs recourse was the contractor but I’m certain there was no money there so they went for some deep pockets. This is so tiresome here, unfortunately you can’t get judges off the Appeals Court once appointed. Must be nice to sit around and dream up their own version of justice without worrying about pesky elections or accountability. Only 5 more years and I move out of this state (CA). Not perfect anywhere but there is just way too much of jurists and government trying to steal from the haves and give to the have nots. And the majority of the “haves” have worked long and hard for their place in life.
I’m with you, RS. As Cali residents, we know that odds are good that the entire landscape business was owned and populated by ILLEGAL immigrants. Why else would they be unlicensed? This is but one price we pay for allowing illegals to swarm into our State. I’ve already purchased a small home outside of Cali and I’m prepared to bolt if the governor hikes our taxes as I suspect he will. I’m finished paying for people who think they have a right to be here when they are breaking our laws.
A good lesson for us all. Never hire a contractor without getting a certificate of insurance. And only accept a certificate directly from the insurance agency or company.
Yes, of course I agree with all of the earlier posts. HOWEVER, the home owner should always know who’s working for them. If it’s an accountant you look for CPA if it a Dr. you look for MD. Insurance agent CIC or CRM, CFP you get the idea.
If it’s a tree service firm you look for NAA, National Assoc. of Arboriculture or ISA, Internation society of Arboriculture.
Last thing Kidds. I think the home owner probably went cheep and that was thier huge mistake. We make our own problems by hiring the illigal untrained just to save a buck and then ***** a fit when it blows up in our face.
At least the Supremes ended up getting it right. Supremes in other states such as Montana would have made the HO responsible even though he had no obligation to the clmt.
How sad. I do not mind arguing the merits of a case, but some of the responses here border on racism at worst and very bad taste at best.
Most people in this country want everything at bargain prices and don’t care where it comes from. These workers average 60 hours a week, in 90+ degree weather in the summer for pennies. Where half of you work your 40 hours in your AC’d office and jerk off half the day.
There were problems on both sides and to boil this down to “its hispanics faults” is narrow minded and hypocritical. Remember that unless you are a native american, you are a decendent of an immigrant who was looking for a better life.
This response is not intended for those you who argued problems with the judicial system (which is more at fault here in my view).
And a final note. Know that over 80% of america’s infrastructure has not been correctly maintained. In all likelihood, it’ll be these same immigrants that rebuild this country’s infrastructure and at a far lesser cost to your “hard” earned dollars than any citizen. Or at least we can hope, otherwise bridge collapses and building failures will be all the more common.
Why aren’t they advertising how horrible the U.S. is in Mexico? If it’s so bad, why do millions continue to cross our border? This guy’s family thought they’d hit the lottery. If they cared about his life/health/welfare, they’d go through proper channels to become legit citizens. I’ve worked alongside many hardworking Mexicans and I’ve seen just as many looking for a handout. Responding to the circumstances of the story is not racist. Try again.
The story is about the a decision that the supreme court made (correctly I might add.) To shift it to a discussion about illegal aliens is racist. The unfortunate worker could have been Latin, Black, Asian or even WHITE (surname notwithstanding.) The issue here is that a party was seeking payment from a homeowner for a occurrance that was clearly not their doing.
That the media isn’t allowed (or chooses not) to mention a person’s ethnicity is inherently dishonest. By the way, if you read my post carefully, I merely pointed out the realities of living in California and that the odds are good mine is the correct assumption. I criticized illegal aliens. YOU made the assumption I was bashing Mexicans. Try again.
“If it’s a tree service firm you look for NAA, National Assoc. of Arboriculture or ISA, Internation society of Arboriculture.”
For real??!! You think anybody outside the profession knows what those letter mean? Or care? The homeowner wants to know they’re dealing with a legitimate biz that carries the proper coverage. A good tree company will provide a copy of their insurance coverage and not lay a bunch of meaningless alphabet soup letters on them. Sorry to say, but same goes for CRM, CIC, and CFP.
Hey – I heard about that CPCU thinger once – someone told me it means “can’t produce, can’t underwrite” Now why would I want something like that??? Oh yeah… more $… LOL –
Does anyone know why the first line of the article refers to “…criminally liable for the misdemeanor acts of a tree trimmer”? Or, near the end of the article, the reference to “…the worker’s own negligent acts or omissions which themselves violated the statute”. What misdemeanor acts? What statute? What is that all about?
In brief, the article is referring to the misdemeanor committed by the tree trimer by operating as an unlicensed contractor. By hiring the contractor the homeowner was allegedly vicariously liable or “guitly” as well because they hired the contractor. The court ruling said that the homeowners were not guilty of this offense.
OK, Bill, but the article in both places makes it look like the employee, Flores, has committed the violation/misdemeanor, when in fact it was the contractor, Rodriguez. Right?
This is a good decision, but it shouldn’t have had to go to the the State Supreme Court. If I hire a company – licensed or not – to do work for me they are responsible for their employees. Otherwise I’d do the work myself or hire people directly.
Good call California.
Yet again, a Court of Appeals tried to impose their brand of socialism on a case after a jury found for the homeowner. Whether the contractor was licensed, insured or not, the homeowners had no negligence. The plaintiffs recourse was the contractor but I’m certain there was no money there so they went for some deep pockets. This is so tiresome here, unfortunately you can’t get judges off the Appeals Court once appointed. Must be nice to sit around and dream up their own version of justice without worrying about pesky elections or accountability. Only 5 more years and I move out of this state (CA). Not perfect anywhere but there is just way too much of jurists and government trying to steal from the haves and give to the have nots. And the majority of the “haves” have worked long and hard for their place in life.
The homeowner still should have checked to see if they had insurance.
Of course other than asking for actual Proof, how can you be sure
I’m with you, RS. As Cali residents, we know that odds are good that the entire landscape business was owned and populated by ILLEGAL immigrants. Why else would they be unlicensed? This is but one price we pay for allowing illegals to swarm into our State. I’ve already purchased a small home outside of Cali and I’m prepared to bolt if the governor hikes our taxes as I suspect he will. I’m finished paying for people who think they have a right to be here when they are breaking our laws.
A good lesson for us all. Never hire a contractor without getting a certificate of insurance. And only accept a certificate directly from the insurance agency or company.
Is there a law in the Socialistic Republic of California that says homeowners can not hire someone unlicensed to work for them?
Yes, of course I agree with all of the earlier posts. HOWEVER, the home owner should always know who’s working for them. If it’s an accountant you look for CPA if it a Dr. you look for MD. Insurance agent CIC or CRM, CFP you get the idea.
If it’s a tree service firm you look for NAA, National Assoc. of Arboriculture or ISA, Internation society of Arboriculture.
Last thing Kidds. I think the home owner probably went cheep and that was thier huge mistake. We make our own problems by hiring the illigal untrained just to save a buck and then ***** a fit when it blows up in our face.
At least the Supremes ended up getting it right. Supremes in other states such as Montana would have made the HO responsible even though he had no obligation to the clmt.
Hire a hispanic and if he gets injured or killed through his own carelessness and stupidity his estate will sue your a s s to get money.
How sad. I do not mind arguing the merits of a case, but some of the responses here border on racism at worst and very bad taste at best.
Most people in this country want everything at bargain prices and don’t care where it comes from. These workers average 60 hours a week, in 90+ degree weather in the summer for pennies. Where half of you work your 40 hours in your AC’d office and jerk off half the day.
There were problems on both sides and to boil this down to “its hispanics faults” is narrow minded and hypocritical. Remember that unless you are a native american, you are a decendent of an immigrant who was looking for a better life.
This response is not intended for those you who argued problems with the judicial system (which is more at fault here in my view).
And a final note. Know that over 80% of america’s infrastructure has not been correctly maintained. In all likelihood, it’ll be these same immigrants that rebuild this country’s infrastructure and at a far lesser cost to your “hard” earned dollars than any citizen. Or at least we can hope, otherwise bridge collapses and building failures will be all the more common.
Checked out a tree service’s cert before they started work on our trees with the agent: haven’t been with the agent for years. Next…
Why aren’t they advertising how horrible the U.S. is in Mexico? If it’s so bad, why do millions continue to cross our border? This guy’s family thought they’d hit the lottery. If they cared about his life/health/welfare, they’d go through proper channels to become legit citizens. I’ve worked alongside many hardworking Mexicans and I’ve seen just as many looking for a handout. Responding to the circumstances of the story is not racist. Try again.
The story is about the a decision that the supreme court made (correctly I might add.) To shift it to a discussion about illegal aliens is racist. The unfortunate worker could have been Latin, Black, Asian or even WHITE (surname notwithstanding.) The issue here is that a party was seeking payment from a homeowner for a occurrance that was clearly not their doing.
To that end, the court made the right decision.
That the media isn’t allowed (or chooses not) to mention a person’s ethnicity is inherently dishonest. By the way, if you read my post carefully, I merely pointed out the realities of living in California and that the odds are good mine is the correct assumption. I criticized illegal aliens. YOU made the assumption I was bashing Mexicans. Try again.
“If it’s a tree service firm you look for NAA, National Assoc. of Arboriculture or ISA, Internation society of Arboriculture.”
For real??!! You think anybody outside the profession knows what those letter mean? Or care? The homeowner wants to know they’re dealing with a legitimate biz that carries the proper coverage. A good tree company will provide a copy of their insurance coverage and not lay a bunch of meaningless alphabet soup letters on them. Sorry to say, but same goes for CRM, CIC, and CFP.
Hey – I heard about that CPCU thinger once – someone told me it means “can’t produce, can’t underwrite” Now why would I want something like that??? Oh yeah… more $… LOL –
Hey Mouse,
You don’t WANT it ’cause you probably couldn’t pass the tests anyway.
Does anyone know why the first line of the article refers to “…criminally liable for the misdemeanor acts of a tree trimmer”? Or, near the end of the article, the reference to “…the worker’s own negligent acts or omissions which themselves violated the statute”. What misdemeanor acts? What statute? What is that all about?
In brief, the article is referring to the misdemeanor committed by the tree trimer by operating as an unlicensed contractor. By hiring the contractor the homeowner was allegedly vicariously liable or “guitly” as well because they hired the contractor. The court ruling said that the homeowners were not guilty of this offense.
OK, Bill, but the article in both places makes it look like the employee, Flores, has committed the violation/misdemeanor, when in fact it was the contractor, Rodriguez. Right?
Thats is correct, the contractor committed the offense (and should be the one hauled into court)