I have a sense of fairness that is royally violated by these scenarios.

It is the unlicensed contractor or his family who sues a homeowner when something goes wrong on the job.

Thus the unlicensed contractor benefits from his own injury and the homeowner who hired him, maybe out of trying to do a guy a favor, is the one who pays.

The moral is don't hire unlicensed contractors.

Here's an example of what I mean: Thomas and Vivian Nelson of Ventura hired Luis Flores, 23, an unlicensed tree trimmer, to cut off some branches near a power line.

Flores was using an aluminum tool when he made contact with a 14,000 volt power line and was electrocuted, dying on the spot.

If Flores was a licensed contractor, he would have been insured and the Nelsons would have no liability whatsoever.

But as an unlicensed contractor, he was an employee of the Nelsons. Because he had not yet put in 52 hours of work for them, the Nelsons' homeowners insurance could not kick in.

It was the parents of Flores who sued the Nelsons for their son killing himself by illegally using a tool within six feet of a power line. The Nelsons are personally on the hook for any award.

This was all decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in April. (2nd Civil No. Bi79275)   Other courts have made similar rulings.

The theory behind all this is the homeowner in an effort to save a buck can be held liable for injuries.

I understand that, but it galls me that an unlicensed contractor or his family can benefit from the unlicensed contractor saving money on his license and insurance.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson