State high court to decide liability for contractor injuries.

HERE'S no ordinary "slip and fall" dispute.

In a case involving Unocal Corp., the California Supreme Court is expected to decide whether companies may be held liable when employees of independent contractors are hurt because of a dangerous condition caused on their property.

The origins of the case go back near half a century.

Several of California's largest employers joined El Segundo-based Unocal this month in arguing before the Supreme Court that companies should be exempted from such liability since those injuries are paid through workers compensation provided by the independent contractors.

Among Unocal's supporters in the case are Lockheed Martin Corp., Farmers Insurance Exchange, the American Chemistry Council and Lennar Corp. The case also could impact homeowners who hire independent contractors.

The court has 90 days to make a decision.

If the ruling goes against Unocal, "there could be more litigation and ultimately someone would have to pay for all those judgments in that litigation," said Stephen Norris, a partner at Horvitz & Levy who represents the oil company. "So there's a tremendous amount that's at stake."

The case began in the 1950s with a carpenter who worked for a general contractor called Burke & Reynolds, which provided maintenance services at Unocal's oil refinery in Wilmington. The carpenter, Ray Kinsman assembled and dismantled scaffolding for other workers who replaced insulation that contained asbestos. By 1999, his exposure to asbestos caused him to contract mesothelioma a type of lung cancer caused by asbestos according to his lawyers in court papers.

In a case Kinsman filed against Unocal, a San Francisco jury awarded him $3 million in damages after finding the oil company partially liable for contributing to his disease. In 2003 an appellate court reversed that decision, finding that Kinsman could not prove Unocal directly caused his injuries or concealed information that would have prevented them.

Kinsman died last year and his widow has replaced him as plaintiff in the case.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, Unocal argued that Kinsman did not prove that the oil company concealed information or contributed to his disease directly. Simply knowing of the health risks of asbestos and failing to prevent that exposure is not enough to accuse Unocal of premises liability, the brief states.

Unocal, now owned by Chevron Corp., is seeking a new trial.

Daniel Smith, a lawyer for Kinsman, did not return calls.