In Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 430, while working at a multiemployer construction site, a subcontractor's employee told his foreman that he had been injured by a nonobvious hazard which had not been created in the course of his work. (Id. at pp. 433-434.) Though the employee told his foreman about the hazard, the foreman did not report it to the general contractor and two of the general contractors were later severely injured by the same hazard. (Id. at p. 434.) Suarez held that the common law did not impose a duty on the subcontractor to protect the general contractor's employees from hazards that it did not create. (Ibid.) Suarez reasoned: "under standard common law tort principles, 'a person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort merely for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act. ' (Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23.) 'Liability for nonfeasance is limited to situations in which there is a special relationship that creates a duty to act. "The basic idea is often referred to as the 'no duty to aid rule,' which remains a fundamental and long-standing rule of tort law. . . . 'As a rule, one has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort merely for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.'" ' (Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202-1203.)" (Suarez, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 437-438.) "The common law did not, however, recognize such a special relationship between an employer on a multiemployer construction site and the employees of another employer who are present at the same worksite." (Suarez , at p. 438.)