This decision reverses a summary judgment in favor of the owner and prime contractor and against the plaintiff, who worked for a demolition subcontractor. Plaintiff was injured by an unknown assailant in a walkway that the owner and prime had left unfenced to allow neighborhood residents access to a bus stop. The owner and prime exercised actual control over security of the construction site (which was in a high crime area) erecting fences, hiring security guards, and installing security cameras. They actually exercised that control through weekly safety meetings. And their negligence in not fencing the walkway and not monitoring the security cameras during the workday might be determined to have contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Hence, there was a triable issue of fact as to their liability under the Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 exception to Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 immunity.