{"id":891512,"date":"2017-01-05T16:18:53","date_gmt":"2017-01-05T23:18:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891512"},"modified":"2017-01-05T16:18:53","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T23:18:53","slug":"construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/","title":{"rendered":"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog<\/a> | January 3, 2017<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve talked about the Privette<\/em> doctrine before (see\u00a0<\/em>here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>). The\u00a0Privette<\/em>\u00a0doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court <\/em>(1993)\u00a05 Cal.4th\u00a0689, provides in general<\/i>\u00a0that project owners and contractors are not<\/em> responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers\u2019 workers\u2019 compensation insurance policies.<\/p>\n

In the twenty years since Privette<\/em> was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor\u2019s employees to sue the \u201chirer\u201d of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who \u201chired\u201d the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer\u00a0retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee\u2019s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation<\/em> (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198.<\/p>\n

Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a\u00a0hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties,\u00a0that\u00a0it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College<\/em> (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661.<\/p>\n

In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc.<\/em>, Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker<\/em> and Padilla<\/em> exceptions where a general contractor was\u00a0contractually responsible for overall site safety.<\/p>\n

Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc.<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The California State University Channel Islands (I didn\u2019t even know there was such a state university until reading this case) was having some electrical work done on its campus.<\/p>\n

The University hired Staples Construction Company, Inc., to install a backup electrical system. Staples in turn hired DK Electrical System, Inc., as the high-voltage subcontractor on the project. And DK Electrical in turn hired Myers Power Products, Inc., to construct and install electrical switchgear for the system. Al Khosh was an employee of Myers.<\/p>\n

The prime contract between Staples and the University required Staples to \u201cexercise precaution at all times for the protection of persons and their property\u201d and to \u201cretain a competent, full-time, on-site superintendent to . . . direct the project at all times.\u201d It also made Staples \u201cexclusively responsible\u201d for the health and safety of its subcontractors and required Staples to submit \u201ccomprehensive written work plans for all activities affecting University operations,\u201d including utility shutdowns.<\/p>\n

While working on the project, Myers informed Staples that it needed three days to accomplish its last task on the project, which required that the electrical system be shutdown. As such, the University scheduled a campus-wide electrical shutdown.<\/p>\n

Two and one half hours before the scheduled shut down time Khosh arrived at the University with one of his helpers. The University\u2019s project manager let Khosh and his helper into a substation containing the electrical switchgear. At the time,\u00a0Staples did not have any personnel at the University.<\/p>\n

Well, you can imagine what happened next: Khosh got the shock of his life. The case doesn\u2019t describe Khosh\u2019s injuries, and I don\u2019t mean to make light (ok, I am a little \u2013 everything is funny so long as it\u2019s happening to someone else), but I\u2019m envisioning a tragic ACMEesque mishap a la\u00a0Road Runner.<\/p>\n

Khosh later sued Staples for negligence. In response, Staples filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that the Privette<\/em> doctrine applied. In opposition to the motion, Khosh argued that the Hooker<\/em>\u00a0and Padilla<\/em> exceptions applied because: (1) Staples retained control over the work and affirmatively contributed to his injuries; and (2) Staples violated a nondelegable regulatory duty because it did not have a qualified electrical worker present to supervise Khosh and did not prepare a written procedure for the electrical shutdown.<\/p>\n

The trial court agreed with Staples and Khosh appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals Decision<\/h2>\n

Application of the Hooker<\/em> Exception<\/h2>\n

On appeal, the Court of Appeals explained that under the Hooker<\/em>\u00a0exception a contractor\u2019s employee may sue the hirer of the contractor if he\/she can show that: (1) the hirer retained control over any part of the work; (2) the hirer negligently exercised that control; and (3) the hirer exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the employee\u2019s injury.<\/p>\n

While Khosh could show that Staples was contractually responsible for general safety and oversight on\u00a0the project, he could not show that Staples \u201caffirmatively contributed\u201d to his injury, stated the Court of Appeals:<\/p>\n

In order for a worker to recover on a retained control theory, the hirer must engage in some active participation. An affirmative contribution may take the form of directing the contractor about the manner or performance of the work, directing that the work be done by a particular mode, or actively participating in how the job is done. Evidence of Staples\u2019s omissions does not create a triable issue of fact regarding affirmative contribution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Court of Appeals was careful to point out, however, that while an \u201comission\u201d to act generally<\/em> does not rise to the level of an affirmative contribution: \u201c[w]hen a hirer promises to undertake a particular safety measure, the negligent failure to fulfill that specific promise may constitute an affirmative contribution.\u201d Here, though, explained the Court, Staples\u2019 general promise to be \u201cresponsible for site safety\u201d did not constitute a \u201cspecific promise to undertake a specific safety measure.\u201d<\/p>\n

Application of the Padilla<\/em> Exception<\/h2>\n

As to the Padilla<\/em> exception, the Court of Appeals explained that a contractor\u2019s employee may recover when:\u00a0(1) the hirer has a nondelegable duty; (2) the hirer breached that nondelegable duty; and (3) the hirer breached that nondelegable duty in a manner that affirmatively contributed to the employee\u2019s injury.<\/p>\n

Here, the California Code of Regulations required that a qualified electrical worker supervise employees in training who are working on energized conductors or equipment connected to energized high-voltage systems. Moreover, the National Fire Protection Association\u2019s standards required that\u00a0complex shutdowns include a\u00a0written plan of execution that identifies the person in charge.<\/p>\n

However, explained the Court of Appeals, while the Privette<\/em> doctrine \u201capplies when the party that hired the contractor fails to comply with the workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract[,] [t]he hirer of an independent contractor presumptively delegates to that contractor the duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor\u2019s employees. This includes any duty to comply with statutory or regulatory safety measures.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, held the Court of Appeals, even if the California Code of Regulations and National Fire Protection Association\u2019s standards created an nondelegable duty on the part of Staples, \u201cthe plaintiff must show that the breach affirmatively contributed to his injury\u201d and, here, \u201c[t]he absence of a work plan or supervisor did not affirmatively contribute to Khosh\u2019s injuries . . . .\u201d<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

For general contractors\u00a0Khosh<\/em>\u00a0is a welcomed, albeit, perhaps, not a particularly surprising decision, which highlights the original intent of the\u00a0Privette<\/em> doctrine to limit an injured employee\u2019s recovery against a higher-tiered party to situations where the higher-tiered party affirmatively contributed to the employee\u2019s injury.<\/p>\n

Be careful out there.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog | January 3, 2017 We\u2019ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see\u00a0here, here, and here). The\u00a0Privette\u00a0doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993)\u00a05 Cal.4th\u00a0689, provides in general\u00a0that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have… Continue reading Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8782],"tags":[88,8834,9884],"class_list":["post-891512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-personal-injury","tag-california","tag-construction-injuries","tag-privette-doctrine","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nConstruction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\"},\"wordCount\":1208,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"california\",\"Construction Injuries\",\"Privette Doctrine\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Personal Injury\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\",\"name\":\"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .","datePublished":"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/"},"wordCount":1208,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["california","Construction Injuries","Privette Doctrine"],"articleSection":["Personal Injury"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/","name":"Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . . - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-01-05T23:18:53+00:00","description":"The Privette doctrine provides that project owners & contractors aren't responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-injuries-privette-doctrine-electrifying-perhaps-not-particularly-shocking-story\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3JVe","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891512","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891512"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891513,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891512\/revisions\/891513"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}