STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: DEFENDANT SUNDT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.
After consideration of all the papers submitted pursuant to Defendant Sundt Construction Inc.'s ("Defendant Sundt") Motion for Summary Judgment , the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Defendant Sundt Construction, Inc. ("Defendant Sundt") is a general contractor, which had subcontracted Bergelectric Corporation ("Bergelectric") to help construct a recreational center at California Polytechnic State University, in the County of San Luis Obispo ("the Premises"). Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8.
2. Defendant Sundt subcontracted Bergelectric for electrical work at the Premises. Baker Decl., Ex. A at 13-16.
3. Bergelectric was responsible for furnishing and paying for, inter alia , all labor, materials, equipment, supplies, tools, machinery, and other services and items required for the completion of the subcontract work. Baker Decl., Ex. A at 2.
4. Plaintiff Kent Griffin ("Plaintiff") was employed by Bergelectric. Compl. ¶ 8.
5. On or about October 10, 2011, Plaintiff was working on the Premises. Plaintiff touched a live wire, sustained an electric shock, which threw him off the ladder, and as a result, he sustained injuries. Id.
6. Bergelectric had a "lockout/tagout" procedure. The "lockout/tagout" is a device an employee puts on a circuit breaker with a lock and a tag indicating that the employee is working on the circuit. If an employee has "locked and tagged" the circuit, the assumption is that the employee has turned the circuit off. Deposition of Kent Griffin ("Griffin Depo.") 62:14-20.
7. Defendant Sundt had no responsibility or involvement in the lockout/tagout procedures. Id. at 195:6-16.
8. Defendant Sundt did not directly supervise Plaintiff's work. Id. at 99:15-19.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. To prevail on his negligence claim, Plaintiff must establish: (1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) proximate [or legal] cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff's injury. Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., Ltd. , 642 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles , 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339 (1998)).
2. "The existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care in a particular factual situation is a question of law for the court to decide." Id . (citing Vasquez v. Residential ...