California employers will not face tort liability with family members of workers who contract COVID-19, the California Supreme Court ruled on July 6. -Home asbestos case,[i] the Court in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. , held that “recognizing a duty of care due to nonworkers in this context would impose an unbearable burden on employers and society in violation of public policy. “[ii] California thus becomes the first state to deny, in court, potentially unlimited liability for negligence based on the worker’s transmission of the coronavirus. [iii]
Robert Kuciemba began running for Victory Woodpaintingss at a structure site in San Francisco in May 2020, a few months after the COVID pandemic began. Just a week earlier, the San Francisco city and county fitness officer issued an order prescribing fitness and protection rules to spare you the spread of the virus at the structure’s sites. Without taking mandatory precautions, Victory then transferred an organization of personnel who may have been exposed to the virus to the Kuciemba site. Kuciemba infected, hospitalized and filed a staff reimbursement claim. He allegedly brought the virus to the house of paintings and passed it on to his wife, Corby. She was hospitalized for several weeks. [iv]
The Kuciembas sued in California Superior Court: Corthrough for his own illness and Robert for the loss of the consortium. After the removal, the Federal District Court dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that Corthrough’s action was precluded through the exclusive provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act and that Victory’s legal responsibility to provide a secure office did not make non-employees greater. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit called two issues in the state Supreme Court:
(1) If a worker contracts COVID-19 in the and reports the virus to their spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act prohibit spousal negligence action against the employer?
(2) Does an employer have a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to members of employees’ households?[v]
The Tribunal answered any of the questions in the negative. First, that Colthrough’s action was not for “consequential damage” limited to the workers’ pay system. Even though exposure from a worker’s office is arguably the number one cause of the plaintiff’s injury, the court said the tort action is barred as a derivative “only if the plaintiff is required to prove that the worker suffered at least one component of the injury. “a legal detail of the plaintiff’s cause of action. [vi] The prosecution of a member of the circle of relatives for his own self-employed injury, the Court noted, does not legally count on the worker’s injury. [vii] “Because Corthrough’s negligence action does not require her to allege or result that Robert suffered damages, this is not prohibited by the consequential damages rule. [viii]
But while a COVID case to pass may be filed in California as a civil liability action, it is now well dead when it reaches court. Responding to the Ninth Circuit’s qualified inquiry of the moment, the Court stated, “We conclude that COVID-19’s family members is a foreseeable result of an employer’s failure to take sufficient precautions against the virus in the workplace, political considerations ultimately require an exception to the general duty of care in this context. [ix]
As in its ruling on the processability of asbestos disease brought to the home, the Court considered as the things it had established in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), whether a deviation from the general duty of care was justified. [x] Of those things, he thought the predictability of injury was of the utmost importance. Although the analogy with its ruling on asbestos in Kesner was not “perfect,”[xi] the Court concluded that this supported the duty to save you carry diseases: “Regardless of the resources of exposure choice or the diversifications in non-public exposure precautions taken by workers, it is entirely foreseeable that a worker who is exposed to the virus through his employer’s negligence will transmit the virus to a household member. [xii]
Regarding the “political factors” portion of Rowland’s test, the Court identified the importance of compliance with suitability orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19. By placing legal liability in third parties, he acknowledged, “the employer could monitor. . . “[xiii] At the same time, the Court assessed the unique demanding situations posed by COVID:
“However, there is not much an employer can do. Employers cannot completely eliminate the threat of infection because many precautions, such as wearing a mask and social distancing, are met by each worker. Employers have little or nothing about protective measures. taken through workers or members of their circle of relatives outside the workplace. Nor can they know whether a specific worker will know or report exposure to a disease. [xiv]”
Exposing employers to tort liability in such circumstances, the Court concluded, can have adverse consequences for the community. Employers may simply take precautions that slow down or even shut down essential services. [xv] Distinguishing between the much smaller organization of asbestos-related plaintiffs and defendants, the Court noted that the legal responsibility to prevent COVID removal would make each and every California employer bigger and that “the pool of potential plaintiffs would be huge, numbering not thousands but millions of Californians. “[xvi] Imposing such a duty would “open the doors of the courthouse to an avalanche of lawsuits. . . “[xvii] “[T]he dramatic expansion of plaintiffs’ liability lawsuits,” the Court said, “has the prospect of destroying business and reducing, or even terminating altogether, the provision of essential services. “[xviii]
With our understanding of the virus and the precautions that become the maximum weekly at the onset of the pandemic and the immediate and multiplicative transmission of the virus, COVID-19 has tested the limits of classic employer tort. The California Supreme Court’s ruling resolves one of the most intriguing and potentially damaging legal upheavals stemming from the pandemic.
For information, please contact:
Clifford J. Zatz, Partner, Crowell
czatz@crowell. com
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement © 2023 Ley Conventus. All rights reserved.