Ryan Medler

In October 2019, homeowner Valerie Dingwall hired an unlicensed worker, Rodolfo Sanchez, to perform a job that required a license under the law. The job included trimming two large trees— both over 15 feet tall— on a project worth more than $500. Before Mr. Sanchez began the work, the homeowner did not warn him that, hidden in the back of one of the bushes he was instructed to cut, was a thin metal wire. So when Mr. Sanchez began cutting through the bushes with his chainsaw, he was not looking for the hidden danger. Minutes later, the blade of his chainsaw struck the hidden metal wire, causing the chain on the end of the saw to snap loose, recoil backwards and slice into his wrist, causing Mr. Sanchez to suffer a permanent nerve injury that eventually developed into Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). The bifurcated trial on this matter was solely on the issue of liability.

This case dealt with the following issues:

1. California Labor Code Section 2750.5, which states that anyone who hires an unlicensed worker to perform a job that requires a license, without offering workers compensation insurance to that worker, is treated, under the law, as the employer of that worker, and is furthermore presumed to be legally responsible for any resulting injury to that worker— unless they can prove they acted as a reasonable employer (a higher burden than a reasonable person).

1. This was not a typical negligence case. Liability turned on interpreting multiple Labor Code provisions and explaining a novel legal presumption to jurors in a way that felt simple, fair, and intuitive. The goal was to break down the licensing requirements— the $500 threshold, and the 15-foot tree rule— into plain, story-driven concepts the jury could follow.

1. Reframing “bad facts” that plaintiff was unqualified, untrained, using the wrong tool and performing the job improperly as “good facts,” since they showed how the homeowner should not have trusted this man with this dangerous job.

1. Overcoming comparative fault arguments that legally didn’t apply. The defense repeatedly argued that Mr. Sanchez caused his own injuries, despite the statutory framework making that argument irrelevant, unless they could overcome the presumption of their client’s negligence.

1. A likable defendant. The homeowner was an elderly woman—soft-spoken, non-threatening, and easy for a jury to sympathize with. We had to hold her accountable without attacking her personally.

1. Language and cultural barriers. Our client and several witnesses were Spanish-speaking. We had to ensure clarity, credibility, and connection with the jury despite inherent bias and communication challenges.

1. Conflicting factual narratives about the scope of work. The defense claimed Mr. Sanchez was only hired to trim bushes— not trees. We had to prove that tree cutting was part of the job, triggering the licensing requirements. This involved cross examinations of the homeowner and the Defense’s star witness, the homeowner’s usual gardener.

1. Disputes over the value of the job. The defense focused on the amount paid, while we had to establish the true market value of the work to meet the statutory threshold.

1. Attacks on causation and the mechanism of injury. The defense argued that no one knew what the chainsaw hit. We had to prove, through circumstantial and expert evidence, that the hidden wire caused the chain to derail.

1. Managing expert imbalance and credibility battles. We presented a workplace safety expert to explain licensing, hazard identification, and employer duties, while exposing the defense experts as limited, biased, or irrelevant.

After weeks of trial, the jury returned a 12–0 verdict, finding that the defendant homeowner was negligent and fully responsible. On the morning opening statements were set to begin for the damages portion of the trial, the defense conceded and tendered the full $1.5 million policy limits.