State Supreme Court Ruling in Take-Home COVID-19 Case

The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision yesterday in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, a take-home COVID-19 case.  The Court found that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and the derivative injury rule do not bar a non-employee family member’s claim for take-home COVID-19.  The Court further held employers do not owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to their employees’ household members.   

The decision followed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ certification of two questions to the Supreme Court.  The questions were:

(1) If an employee contracts COVID-19 at the workplace and brings the virus home to a spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act bar the spouse’s negligence claim against the employer?

(2) Does an employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members?   

The Court answered “no” to both questions.  

Justice Corrigan noted the exclusivity question was correctly addressed by the Second District Court of Appeal in See’s Candies v. Los Angeles Superior Court which held the exclusive remedy does not bar spousal claims against employers for take-home COVID-19.  In See’s Candies the court concluded the derivative injury rule only applies when it is “legally impossible to state a cause of action . . . without alleging a disabling or lethal injury to another person.”  

When discussing the second question regarding duty of care, Justice Corrigan wrote “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.”  She concluded “that employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”

The Institute joined the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Restaurant Law Center, and the National Retail Federation as Amici Curiae.  The Institute is preparing a Significant Decision summary on the ruling which will be issued next week.

SWB/