Eckis v. Sea World Corp.
134 Cal. Rptr. 183 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury falls within the course and scope of employment, making workers' compensation the employee's exclusive remedy, when it occurs on the employer's premises during work hours while the employee is engaged in an activity requested by and for the benefit of the employer, even if the activity is outside the employee's normal job duties.
Facts:
- Anne E. Eckis was employed as a secretary for Kent Burgess, the director of animal training at Sea World.
- Sea World's public relations director and Burgess asked Eckis if she would ride Shamu, the killer whale, in a bikini for publicity photographs.
- Burgess was aware that Shamu had previously attacked riders wearing bathing suits and had been behaving erratically, but he did not disclose this information to Eckis.
- When Eckis expressed apprehension, Burgess reassured her the ride was 'as safe as it could be.'
- Eckis agreed to perform the ride, which was scheduled to take place on Sea World's premises during her normal working hours.
- Sea World trainers prepared Eckis for the ride and the company paid for her bikini.
- During the third ride, Eckis fell off Shamu, and the whale bit her legs and hips, causing significant injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Anne E. Eckis filed a civil complaint against Sea World in superior court (the trial court of first instance) alleging fraud and negligence.
- Simultaneously, Eckis filed an application for benefits with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
- Sea World filed a motion for summary judgment in the superior court, arguing that workers' compensation was Eckis's exclusive remedy.
- The trial court denied Sea World's motion for summary judgment.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Eckis for $75,000 and made a special finding that she was not acting within the course and scope of her employment when injured.
- The trial court denied Sea World's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
- Sea World, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District. Eckis is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's injury, sustained while performing an unusual task at the employer's specific request for the employer's benefit, fall within the course and scope of her employment, thereby making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy against the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Ault, J.
Yes, the injury falls within the course and scope of employment, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. An employee's right to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act is not limited to injuries that occur while performing the duties for which they were originally hired. The court reasoned that the Workers' Compensation Act must be liberally construed in favor of finding coverage. Here, there was a sufficient 'quantum of work-connection' because the injury occurred on the employer's premises, during regular working hours, while the employee was engaged in an activity specifically requested by the employer, and for the direct benefit of the employer's business. Because these conditions are met as a matter of law, the injury is compensable under the Act, and a civil suit for damages is barred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'exclusive remedy' doctrine in workers' compensation law, making it very difficult for an employee to sue an employer in tort for a workplace injury. It establishes that the 'course and scope of employment' is broadly defined and includes any activity, however unusual or unrelated to an employee's job title, that is requested by and benefits the employer. The ruling prioritizes the statutory scheme of no-fault workers' compensation over an individual employee's ability to seek potentially larger damages in a civil lawsuit, even where the employer may have been negligent or failed to disclose known dangers.
Unlock the full brief for Eckis v. Sea World Corp.