In Gamboa v. Conti Trucking, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 663, a wrongful death action, Roberto Gamboa was killed when his bicycle was struck by a tractor-trailer owned by Alberg Trucking and driven by Demele, its employee. At the time of the accident, Alberg Trucking (an independent contractor) was subhauling freight for Conti Trucking. Both Alberg and Conti were licensed by the PUC as highway carriers, and Conti had verified that Alberg had the appropriate amount of liability insurance. The trial court granted Conti Trucking's motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed: "Conti Trucking contends that to the extent of any nondelegable duty imposed by Eli v. Murphy, Conti Trucking's vicarious liability was extinguished pursuant to Klein v. Leatherman .... ... ... Conti Trucking contends that if the primary carrier meets its obligation to ensure that the independent contractor carrier is licensed to haul freight on California highways and has the required amount of liability insurance, it has satisfied its nondelegable duty under Eli v. Murphy and any vicarious liability is extinguished. "... The holding of Klein v. Leatherman ... is an expansion of the nondelegable duty doctrine. The Court of Appeal recognized that one truck on the highway tends to be like any other and 'it is difficult to discern wherein classification of the operation on the highway as a privilege under franchise, or as a right under a permit, changes the degree of protection required. ' Klein v. Leatherman appears to be the first and only reported opinion in California applying the rule of section 428 of the Restatement of Torts to a nonfranchised highway contract carrier. "... Klein v. Leatherman states that the '... monetary liability under the nondelegable duty may be eliminated, or diminished, pro tanto.' This, of course, would follow since any amount a plaintiff may recover from a vicariously liable highway common carrier would be reduced by any payment made by or on behalf of the primary tortfeasor and eliminated completely if the insurance coverage is sufficient to cover the damages sustained. Any amount paid by one joint tortfeasor operates to reduce pro tanto the amount of damages that a plaintiff may recover against other joint tortfeasors. However, the nondelegable duty of care would not be affected." ( Gamboa v. Conti Trucking, Inc., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 666-668.)