PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court had accepted the request of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer a question of state law regarding employers' liability in COVID-19 claims. Read more here.HOLDING
In a unanimous decision, the court held:
- Exclusivity provisions of the WCA do not bar a nonemployee’s recovery for injuries that are not legally dependent upon an injury suffered by the employee; and
- Although it is foreseeable that an employer’s negligence in permitting workplace spread of COVID-19 will cause members of employees’ households to contract the disease, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy. These and other policy considerations lead us to conclude that employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
ANALYSIS
In reaching its landmark decision, the California Supreme Court reflected upon the over five decades of an unending flood of litigation generated by using asbestos in the workplace and allowing household contacts to file claims against employers as a result of contracting a disease causally related to workers taking home asbestos fiber on their clothes and exposed members of the household. The most common diseases were asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
The California Supreme Court was reluctant to impose a duty of care upon employers in the case of the COVID-19 virus. It relied on three primary public policy considerations in reaching its conclusion, distinguished it from asbestos litigation household contact claims.
- The number of individuals exposed to the COVID-19 virus was far greater than those exposed to asbestos;
- The financial consequences for employers in the COVID-19 situation would be far more significant; and
- Litigation of household contact COVID-19 claims would significantly burden the judicial system. “If there was ever a ‘floodgates’ situation, this is it.” “Fact-specific disputes could also make these cases complex and time-consuming to litigate” and would be “daunting.”
CONCLUSION
The California Supreme Court has closed the judicial system to household COVID-19 claims because they are too big to handle. Public policy considerations still exist for establishing an alternative claims procedure to handle these claims and to direct responsibility to those employers who evaded public health considerations and regulations. The state and Federal Legislatures should enact a comprehensive compensation program to assist household contacts of COVID-19 and assess responsibility through a broad and sweeping fund that could also support public health programs, including pandemic prevention and response.
Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. Decided: 7/6/23, SC Docket S274191 ( California 2023)
RELATED ARTICLES
Haledon Man Sues Asbestos Plant For Wife's Death Due to Mesothelioma
Cancer Risk Passes to Kin of Asbestos Workers
Health Effects of Workers' Home Contamination
Injuries Off The Employer's Premises
Industrial Disease: The Quest for Recognition--The Need for Adequate Benefits
......
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com has represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Blog: Workers ' Compensation
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters
Mastodon:@gelman@mstdn.social
