{"id":900947,"date":"2023-03-15T15:29:48","date_gmt":"2023-03-15T21:29:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=900947"},"modified":"2023-03-15T15:30:00","modified_gmt":"2023-03-15T21:30:00","slug":"hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/","title":{"rendered":"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve written before about the Privette doctrine<\/a>, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception<\/a>, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor\u2019s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker\u2019s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next case,\u00a0McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc.<\/em>\u00a0(2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005, discussed the first of these two exceptions, the Hooker exception, in the context of worker slipping from ladder placed on an icy surface caused by a general contractor\u2019s use of heaters in South Lake Tahoe, California.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The McCullar Case<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Tommy McCullar worked for Tyco Simplex Grinnell, Inc., a fire sprinkler system subcontractor to SMC Contracting, Inc., the general contractor on a project known as the Chateau at the Village in South Lake Tahoe, California. Under the parties\u2019 agreement, Tyco agreed to \u201cimmediately correct any and all unsafe acts or conditions that are brought to its attention\u201d and to \u201ccomply with all specific safety requirements promulgated by any governmental authority, including without limitation, the requirements of the applicable state and federal Occupational Safety Health Act\u2026.\u201d Further, Tyco agreed to \u201cconform to the safety policy of [SMC]\u201d and SMC\u2019s safety policy stated, among other things, that \u201c[s]ubcontractor supervisory personnel will review each work area prior to commencing work\u201d and eliminate \u201c[a]ny [s]afety hazards \u2026 prior to commencing work.\u201d SMC\u2019s safety policy also stated that that subcontractors must provide a safety orientation for their employees, which must include the following instruction: \u201cDon\u2019t work unsafely or in unsafe environment. Tell foreman.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the fire sprinkler installation, McCullar arrived at the project to find the floor covered in ice. The night before, SMC had turned on heaters in the project to help dry a fireproof coating. According to McCullar, the heaters melted the snow on the roof, the melted snow dripped onto the floor through openings in the roof where air conditioning units were to be installed, and the water on the floor then froze into ice overnight when the temperature fell below freezing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On seeing the ice, McCullar asked SMC\u2019s superintendent what are \u201cwe \u2026 going to do about this ice issue\u201d? But rather than answer the question, the superintendent said that SMC \u201cha[d] to have the heaters on\u201d to dry the fireproofing coating on the building\u2019s steel beams. McCullar responded, \u201c`Well, that\u2019s fine, but what are we going to do about the ice situation?’\u201d \u201cAnd at that point,\u201d according to McCullar, the superintendent \u201ctold me to go back to work and he turned around and walked off.\u201d Shortly before talking to SMC\u2019s superintendent, McCullar also asked Tyco\u2019s field superintendent \u201cwhat he was going to do about the issue we have with safety of all the ice on the floor.\u201d But Tyco\u2019s field superintendent said only, \u201c`What can I tell you, Tom. Get the job done.’\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCullar then began to work on the ice using a ladder and the results, as you might imagine, weren\u2019t good. McCullar fell after the ladder slid on the ice and he suffered a shoulder injury that required surgery. McCullar later filed suit against SMC alleging five causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, violation of a nondelegable duty to maintain work floors in a safe condition, violation of a legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace, and a loss of consortium claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the case, SMC filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that, under the Privette doctrine, SMC delegated its duty to ensure a safe workplace to Tyco so McCullar need to look to Tyco for recovery. The trial court agreed and granted SMC\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCullar appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Appeal<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, the 3rd District Court of Appeal explained that the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine includes three key concepts: (1) retained control, (2) actual exercise, and (3) affirmative contribution:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA hirer `retains control\u2019 where it retains a sufficient degree of authority over the manner of performance of the work entrusted to the contractor.\u201d Our Supreme Court has emphasized that \u201c[a] hirer might be responsible for the presence of a hazard and even convey an expectation that the contractor perform its work without eliminating that hazard altogether, and yet leave the contractor ample freedom to accommodate that hazard effectively in whatever manner the contractor sees fit. In such instance, the hirer does not necessarily retain a sufficient degree of control over the contractor\u2019s manner of performing the contracted work to constitute `retained control.’\u201d<\/p>

\u201cA hirer `actually exercise[s]\u2019 its retained control over the contracted work when it involves itself in the contracted work `such that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in the contractor\u2019s own manner.\u2019 [Citations.] In other words, the hirer must exert some influence over the manner in which the contracted work is performed.\u201d \u201cUnlike `retained control,\u2019 which is satisfied where the hirer retains merely the\u00a0right<\/em>\u00a0to become so involved, `actual exercise\u2019 requires that the hirer in fact involve itself\u201d (ibid.<\/em>), \u201csuch as by directing the manner or methods in which the contractor performs the work; interfering with the contractor\u2019s decisions regarding the appropriate safety measures to adopt; requesting the contractor to use the hirer\u2019s own defective equipment in performing the work; contractually prohibiting the contractor from implementing a necessary safety precaution; or reneging on a promise to remedy a known hazard.\u201d<\/p>

Lastly, \u201c`[a]ffirmative contribution\u2019 means that the hirer\u2019s exercise of retained control contributes to the injury in a way that isn\u2019t merely derivative of the contractor\u2019s contribution to the injury.\u201d A hirer\u2019s conduct satisfies the affirmative contribution requirement when \u201cthe hirer in some respect induced\u2014not just failed to prevent\u2014the contractor\u2019s injury-causing conduct.\u201d (Ibid.<\/em>) \u201cA hirer\u2019s conduct also satisfies the affirmative contribution requirement where the hirer\u2019s exercise of retained control contributes to the injury independently of the contractor\u2019s contribution (if any) to the injury.\u201d (Ibid.<\/em>) That would be true, for instance, if \u201cthe hirer promises to undertake a particular safety measure, [but] then \u2026 negligent[ly] fail[s] to do so.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>

The\u00a0Hooker<\/em>\u00a0exception to\u00a0Privette<\/em>\u00a0is triggered only when all three of these concepts\u2014retained control, actual exercise, and affirmative contribution \u2014are satisfied. Our Supreme Court in [Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated<\/em>\u00a0(2021) 12 Cal.5th 256, 264] summed up these three concepts this way: \u201cA hirer\u2019s mere authority to prevent or correct a contractor\u2019s unsafe practices (retained control) does not, without more, limit the contractor\u2019s delegated control over the work. But to the extent that the hirer exerts influence over the contracted work such that the contractor is not entirely free to perform the work in the contractor\u2019s own manner (actual exercise), the hirer does limit the contractor\u2019s delegated control. Still, we impose a duty only where that limitation itself contributed to the worker\u2019s injury (affirmative contribution), rather than where that limitation incidentally created an opportunity for the hirer to prevent the contractor\u2019s injury-causing conduct.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As to McCullar\u2019s negligence claim, the Court of Appeal, while acknowledging that SMC\u2019s conduct caused ice to form and, therefore, required Tyco to take extra safety precautions to account for the ice, explained that under the California Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Gonzalez v. Mathis<\/em>\u00a0(2021) 12 Cal.5th 29, 45, \u201c[o]nce an independent contractor becomes aware of a hazard on the premises, `the landowner\/hirer delegates the responsibility of employee safety to the contractor\u2019 and `a hirer has no duty to act to protect the employee when the contractor fails in that task. . . .’\u201d Further, explained the Court of Appeal, under the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Sandoval<\/em>, this presumed delegation of responsibility is not overcome simply because the hirer negligently created the hazardous condition, because while \u201c[a] hirer might be responsible for the presence of a hazard and even convey an expectation that the contractor perform its work without eliminating that hazard altogether, [ ] yet leave the contractor ample freedom to accommodate that hazard effectively in whatever manner the contractor sees fit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, held the Court of Appeal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We conclude that Tyco not only had the authority to remove the ice, whether by chipping the ice, melting the ice, or through some other means; it also, as discussed, had the responsibility to take the necessary precautions to protect its employees from any hazard posed by the ice. And although Tyco did not exercise this responsibility to prevent McCullar\u2019s injury, McCullar cannot hold SMC responsible for Tyco\u2019s own failure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal held that McCullar\u2019s remaining claims failed for similar reasons including his negligence per se claim. As to McCullar\u2019s negligence per se claim, based on CalOSHA\u2019s regulations found at 8 CCR \u00a73273, which requires slippery floors to \u201cbe protected against slipping by using mats, grates, cleats, or other methods which provide equivalent protection,\u201d the Court of Appeal, citing the California Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc.<\/em>\u00a0(2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 594, \u00a0explained that when hiring an independent contractor, a hirer implicitly delegates to the contractor \u201cany tort law duty [it] owes to the contractor\u2019s employees to comply with applicable statutory or regulatory requirements.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

So there you have it, just because you caused it, doesn\u2019t mean you own it, at least under the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog We\u2019ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers.… Continue reading Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine<\/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":[14],"tags":[9895,11856,11857,9884],"class_list":["post-900947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-2","tag-advise-consult","tag-hooker-exception","tag-kinsman-exception","tag-privette-doctrine","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nJust Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception\" \/>\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\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-03-15T21:30:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-15T21:30:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\"},\"wordCount\":1726,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Hooker Exception\",\"Kinsman Exception\",\"Privette Doctrine\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\",\"name\":\"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-15T21:30:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception","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\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-03-15T21:30:00+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine","datePublished":"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-15T21:30:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/"},"wordCount":1726,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Hooker Exception","Kinsman Exception","Privette Doctrine"],"articleSection":["Construction"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/","name":"Just Because You Caused it, Doesn\u2019t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-03-15T21:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-15T21:30:00+00:00","description":"There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception and the Kinsman Exception","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/hooker-exception-privette-doctrine-california\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Mnp","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900947","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=900947"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900947\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":900948,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900947\/revisions\/900948"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=900947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=900947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=900947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}