Kermani LLP focused on who actually controlled the work that injured him. The central issue became whether First Solar, which kept control of lockout/tagout on the site, failed to lock out the circuit he was working on. The case began with no settlement offer and a defense that blamed the worker and his employer. A Monterey County jury returned a $51.3 million verdict and found First Solar 100% responsible. The trial court later ordered a new trial on damages and both sides appealed. The parties then agreed to a $45 million settlement.
What the case turned on
Primary liability issue
Whether First Solar, which controlled lockout/tagout on the site, could be held liable for an injury to a subcontractor's employee
Key evidence
First Solar's own lockout permit, energy isolation sheet and maps, and the deposition of its corporate representative
Primary defense
The worker and his employer caused the incident, and the shock did not cause his brain, seizure and heart conditions
What Happened at the Cal Flats Solar Project?
On April 17, 2019, Kelley Maggio was torque-checking wire terminations at a power conversion station on First Solar's Cal Flats project in southern Monterey County. He worked for CSI Electrical Contractors, a subcontractor on the job. The circuit he was working on was supposed to be locked out, meaning de-energized and secured so no one could turn it back on.
It was not. First Solar controlled lockout/tagout on the site, and its crew locked only 28 of the 32 combiner boxes feeding that station. It locked out four unrelated boxes instead, and its energy isolation sheet and maps left off two of the boxes that were later found switched on. When the circuit was energized, more than 1,000 volts of direct current passed through Kelley's right arm.
A co-worker operating nearby equipment heard him screaming. Kelley was flown by CHP helicopter to the burn unit at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno. After the incident, First Solar handed lockout/tagout responsibility on the project to Kelley's employer.
Kelley survived, but his injuries were severe:
- Full-thickness electrical burns to his right hand, wrist, and arm, with nerve damage and a fracture
- Muscle breakdown and a stunned heart muscle, followed by a drop in heart function
- Complex regional pain syndrome and chronic neuropathic pain
- Temporal lobe seizures and a brain lesion consistent with brain injury
- PTSD and depression
Qualified Medical Examiners rated him 85 to 90% permanently disabled. He has about 20% function in his right hand and faces more orthopedic surgery.
When Is a Project Owner Liable for a Subcontractor's Injured Worker in California?
An injured worker in California generally cannot sue his own employer. Labor Code § 3602 makes workers' compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer. Labor Code § 3852 preserves the right to sue a third party whose negligence caused the injury, and on a construction site the most obvious third party is often the owner or general contractor that hired the worker's employer.
California law makes that claim hard to win. Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), and the cases that followed it presume that a company hiring an independent contractor delegates responsibility for workplace safety to that contractor. In most cases, the hiring company is not liable when the contractor's employee gets hurt.
The presumption has limits. Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198 (2002), allows liability when the hiring company retains control over safety conditions, actually exercises that control, and its exercise of control affirmatively contributes to the injury. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (2005), adds a separate exception for a hazard the hiring company knew about and the contractor could not reasonably discover.
Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., 12 Cal.5th 256 (2021), shows how narrow the retained control exception can be. Like this case, Sandoval involved an electrical injury on a site where the hiring company had a role in powering down the circuits. The Supreme Court ruled for Qualcomm, finding it had handed control of the work to the contractor, and explained that affirmative contribution means the hiring company's own exercise of control contributed to the injury independently of anything the contractor did.
These cases are why control of the lockout was the entire case. A company that hands the work to a contractor and steps back is Privette and Sandoval. A company that keeps the locks for itself, decides which boxes get locked, and locks the wrong ones is Hooker. Without evidence that First Solar controlled and carried out the lockout, the defense would have been right that responsibility belonged to Kelley's employer.
Hurt on a job site because another company controlled the safety process? Call Kermani LLP for a free case evaluation.
Why Holding First Solar Responsible Was Difficult
The defense had several arguments, and each one pointed away from First Solar. It argued that Kelley should have placed his own lock on the gang box and should have performed a live-dead-live test after returning from lunch. It argued that his employer, CSI, failed to do a walk-down of the equipment and failed to provide a safe workplace.
First Solar also pleaded comparative fault, assumption of risk, superseding cause, and Proposition 51, which limits each defendant's share of non-economic damages to its own percentage of fault under Civil Code § 1431.2. If a jury assigned even part of the blame to Kelley or CSI, the recovery against First Solar would shrink with it. And because CSI was Kelley's employer, workers' compensation barred any direct claim against it.
One fact made the case harder still. No one was ever identified as the person who re-energized the circuit. Our legal team could not point to a single worker's mistake, so the case had to be built on what First Solar's lockout system did and did not do.
The Lockout Records That Became Central to the Case
Kermani LLP built the liability case from First Solar's own paperwork. The lockout/tagout permit for the work was marked "not locked, found closed." First Solar's energy isolation sheet and maps for the station omitted the two combiner boxes that were found switched on, and its crew had locked four boxes that did not feed the station at all.
Witnesses testified that First Solar alone applied the locks on the project. According to testimony, a First Solar manager acknowledged after the incident that the company had "dropped the ball." Electrical engineer John Palmer analyzed the lockout process against industry and Cal/OSHA standards, and electrical injury expert Michael Morse explained to the jury how the current traveled through Kelley's body.
The Deposition That Strengthened the Liability Claim
The deposition of First Solar's corporate representative became the turning point in the case. A corporate representative testifies on behalf of the company itself, so his answers bind the company in a way an individual employee's do not.
Under questioning, he agreed it was more likely than not that the circuit was re-energized within five seconds of the shock. He also conceded that a lock placed by Kelley would not have prevented the injury. In Kermani LLP's view, that testimony amounted to an admission that First Solar was fully at fault, even though he still described responsibility as "50/50."
Days later, Kermani LLP served a $20 million statutory settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure § 998. If First Solar rejected it and the verdict came in higher, the company would owe 10% annual interest on the judgment from the date of the offer under Civil Code § 3291, and could be ordered to pay expert witness costs.
Proving the Injuries Were Caused by the Shock
Liability was only half the fight. First Solar did not dispute the burns, but it disputed that the shock caused Kelley's brain injury, seizures, and heart condition. Its expert roster included specialists in electrical injury, neurology, neuroradiology, psychiatry, neuropsychology, pain medicine, and cardiology.
Kermani LLP answered with Kelley's treating burn surgeons, cardiologists, and orthopedist, along with experts in neurology, neuroradiology, neuropsychology, and brain injury rehabilitation. The treating cardiologists documented his heart function falling after the incident. Imaging showed a brain lesion consistent with injury, and an epilepsy evaluation at UCSF addressed his seizures, which included smell hallucinations.
The jury also heard how the injuries changed daily life. Jurors heard about severe pain episodes and memory lapses, including a time he could not remember the freeway exit to the home his mother had lived in for more than 30 years. A life care planner, an economist, and a vocational expert addressed the cost of his future care.
How a $0 Position Became a $51.3 Million Verdict
First Solar never made a settlement offer before trial. It called the $20 million statutory offer premature and held to its position that Kelley and his employer shared the blame. A court settlement conference and a full-day mediation ended the same way.
On June 28, 2023, the jury returned a record verdict for an electrical injury case:
- $2.3 million to Kelley for future medical care and household services
- $16 million to Kelley for past non-economic damages
- $28.5 million to Kelley for future non-economic damages
- $4.5 million to Kirsty Maggio for loss of consortium
The jury found that Kelley and CSI were each negligent in some respect but that neither was a substantial factor in causing the harm. It assigned 100% of the responsibility to First Solar. Because the verdict was more than double the statutory offer, the judgment also carried 10% annual interest running back to the date of the offer.
Why the Verdict Was Not the End of the Case
First Solar moved for a new trial, arguing the damages were excessive. The court agreed as to non-economic damages and offered the family a choice: accept a reduction of the total award to $21.8 million or face a new trial. The family declined, and the court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial.
Both sides appealed. First Solar challenged the verdict itself, and the family challenged the reduction, arguing among other things that the court had ruled after its statutory deadline to decide the motion had passed.
Why the $45 Million Settlement Made Strategic Sense
An appellate win could have restored the full verdict with added interest. An appellate loss could have sent the family back to trial to prove the case again in front of a new jury. There was no deadline for the Court of Appeal to rule.
The parties agreed to a $45 million settlement. That is about 88% of the original verdict and more than twice the $21.8 million the trial court had offered. It gave Kelley and Kirsty a final recovery without another trial or more waiting.
What This Case Shows About Construction Site Electrocution Claims
One of the most important lessons from this case is that a workers' compensation claim is not always the only option. When another company controlled part of the work that caused the injury, that company may be responsible for its own conduct, even if the injured worker was employed by someone else.
Questions that may become important in a construction site injury claim include:
- Who controlled the safety process? On large projects, the owner or general contractor sometimes keeps control of lockout/tagout, permits, or energized work instead of delegating it.
- What do the records show? Lockout permits, energy isolation sheets, maps, and incident reports can show whether the safety process was followed.
- What happened afterward? A change in who handles safety after an incident, or an admission by a manager, can be important evidence.
A Difficult Case and a $45 Million Recovery for the Maggio Family
No financial recovery can undo an injury like Kelley's. For the Maggio family, however, the settlement provided a measure of accountability in a case where the defense offered nothing and fought the verdict on appeal.
If you were injured on a job site and another company controlled the equipment, the power, or the safety procedures, Kermani LLP can investigate what happened and explain the legal options that may be available. Our California electrical injury lawyers and construction accident lawyers represent injured workers in Monterey County, the Central Coast, and throughout the state.
Contact our legal team for a free case evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Construction Site Electrocution Claims in California
Can an injured worker sue someone other than their employer in California?
Yes. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer under Labor Code § 3602, but Labor Code § 3852 allows a worker to sue a third party whose negligence caused the injury. That can include a project owner, general contractor, equipment manufacturer, or another subcontractor. Unlike workers' compensation, a third-party claim can recover full damages, including pain and suffering.
Is a project owner or general contractor liable when a subcontractor's employee is hurt?
Not automatically. Under Privette v. Superior Court, the company that hires a contractor is presumed to have delegated workplace safety to that contractor. Liability can still exist when the hiring company retained control over safety, exercised that control, and its exercise affirmatively contributed to the injury, or when it knew of a concealed hazard the contractor could not reasonably discover.
What is the Privette doctrine?
The Privette doctrine is the California rule, named for Privette v. Superior Court (1993), that a company hiring an independent contractor is generally not liable when one of the contractor's employees is injured on the job. Courts presume the hiring company delegated safety to the contractor. The main exceptions are retained control, when the hiring company kept control of the work and its exercise of that control contributed to the injury, and concealed hazards, when the hiring company knew of a danger the contractor could not reasonably have found. In this case, First Solar's control of the lockout process was the retained control exception.
What happens to my workers' compensation benefits if I win a third-party case?
The employer or its insurance carrier usually has a lien for benefits it already paid, under Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3856, and may receive a credit against future benefits under § 3858. These liens can sometimes be negotiated or reduced, including when the employer's own negligence contributed to the injury.
Can a spouse recover damages when a worker is seriously injured?
Yes. California recognizes a spouse's or registered domestic partner's own claim for loss of consortium, which covers the loss of companionship, affection, and support caused by the injury. In this case, the jury awarded Kirsty Maggio $4.5 million on that claim.
How long do I have to file a workplace injury lawsuit in California?
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, a personal injury lawsuit against a third party must generally be filed within two years of the injury. If a public entity is involved, a government claim must usually be presented within six months under Government Code § 911.2. Workers' compensation claims follow separate deadlines.
What is a 998 offer, and why does it matter?
A 998 offer is a formal settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure § 998. If a plaintiff makes one, the defendant rejects it, and the plaintiff then wins a larger judgment at trial, the defendant may owe 10% annual interest from the date of the offer under Civil Code § 3291, and may be ordered to pay expert witness costs. It shifts real financial risk onto a defendant that refuses to negotiate.
