July 6, 2023
Decided July 6, 2023
Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., S274191
The California Supreme Court held today that employers owe no duty of care, under state tort law, to nonemployees (including employees’ family members) to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Background:
Robert Kuciemba worked for Victory Woodworks in San Francisco. He contracted COVID-19 while at work, allegedly because Victory transferred workers from a job site where there were many infections to his site. He brought the virus home and transmitted it to his wife, whose age and ill health made her especially vulnerable to COVID. She was hospitalized for over a month as a result.
The Kuciembas sued Victory in California court, raising a variety of state-law tort claims. After Victory removed the case to federal court, the district court dismissed the complaint. It first ruled that Mrs. Kuciemba’s claims against Victory were barred by the derivative-injury doctrine—namely, that California’s Workers Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries and third-party claims that are “collateral to or derivative of” work-related injuries. The court also ruled in the alternative that Victory had no duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID to Mrs. Kuciemba.
The Kuciembas appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which—noting the lack of clear precedent addressing the scope of the derivative-injury doctrine or the duty of care in a case like the Kuciembas’—certified both issues to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted certification and heard argument in May 2023.
Issues:
1. If an employee gets COVID-19 at work and transmits the virus to his spouse, does the derivative-injury doctrine bar the spouse’s claim against the employer?
2. Does an employer owe a duty to the households of employees to exercise ordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
Court’s Holding:
1. No. Third-party claims are barred by the derivative-injury doctrine only when they are “legally dependent on the employee’s injury,” such as with an heir’s wrongful-death or spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim. The derivative-injury doctrine does not bar “a family member’s claim for her own independent injury,” even if the injury was “caused by the same negligent conduct of the employer” that injured the employee.
2. No. Although it is generally “foreseeable that an employer’s negligence in permitting workplace spread of COVID-19 will cause members of employees’ households to contract the disease,” “the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large counsels in favor of” declining to impose such a duty on employers.
What It Means:
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the California Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
Thomas H. Dupree Jr. |
Allyson N. Ho |
Julian W. Poon |
Blaine H. Evanson |
Bradley J. Hamburger |
Michael J. Holecek |
Related Practice: Labor and Employment
Jason C. Schwartz |
Katherine V.A. Smith |
Related Practice: Litigation
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. |
Theane Evangelis |