Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.
Not yet in Reporter, Certified Questions from Ninth Circuit Case No. 21-15963 (2023)
Rule of Law:
California's workers' compensation law does not bar a nonemployee's negligence claim against an employer for injuries that are not legally dependent on an injury suffered by the employee, but employers generally do not owe a tort duty of care to employees' household members to prevent the spread of highly transmissible diseases like COVID-19 due to significant public policy burdens.
Facts:
- In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and Bay Area counties issued shelter-in-place orders, later replaced with industry-specific orders.
- On April 29, 2020, the City and County of San Francisco’s health officer issued an order prescribing health and safety guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction jobsites.
- On May 6, 2020, Robert Kuciemba began working for Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Victory) at a construction site in San Francisco.
- About two months later, Victory transferred a group of workers to the San Francisco site from another location where they may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, without taking precautions required by the county’s health order.
- Robert Kuciemba was required to work in close contact with these new workers and subsequently became infected with COVID-19.
- Robert carried the virus home and transmitted it to his wife, Corby Kuciemba, either directly or through contact with his clothing and personal effects.
- Corby Kuciemba was hospitalized for several weeks due to her COVID-19 infection and, at one point, was kept alive on a respirator.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2020, Corby and Robert Kuciemba sued Victory Woodworks, Inc. in superior court (state trial court) in California.
- Victory removed the case to federal court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California).
- The District Court granted Victory's motion to dismiss the original complaint, but allowed the Kuciembas leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
- The District Court granted Victory's renewed motion to dismiss, this time without leave to amend, concluding that some claims were barred by the WCA, others were implausible, and Victory's duty did not extend to nonemployees like Corby.
- Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit certified two questions of California law to the Supreme Court of California for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) bar a nonemployee spouse's negligence claim against an employer for contracting COVID-19 from an employee who was infected at the workplace? 2. Does an employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
No, the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) does not bar a nonemployee spouse's negligence claim against an employer when the spouse's injury is not legally dependent on an injury suffered by the employee. The derivative injury doctrine applies only if a plaintiff is required to prove injury to an employee as a legal element of their own cause of action. While Robert's infection was a factual "but for" cause of Corby's illness, Corby's negligence claim for her own physical injury is not legally dependent on Robert suffering an injury; she only needs to show Robert was exposed at work and transmitted the virus to her. The court clarifies that a mere causal link is insufficient to trigger the exclusivity bar, disapproving Salin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to that extent. No, an employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. While Civil Code section 1714 generally establishes a default duty of care when a defendant's own conduct creates a risk of harm (and the employer's alleged conduct of violating health orders made Corby's situation worse), policy considerations under the Rowland v. Christian factors weigh against recognizing such a duty. Although foreseeability of harm to household members from workplace negligence is high, and some moral blame could be attached to disregarding health orders, the significant and unpredictable burden of imposing a tort duty for a highly transmissible virus like COVID-19 on all California businesses, the court system, and the community at large is too great. This dramatic expansion of liability would lead to a deluge of complex lawsuits, be difficult to prove, and could potentially destroy businesses or curtail essential public services. These overwhelming public policy concerns outweigh the foreseeability of harm.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the derivative injury doctrine under California's workers' compensation law, emphasizing that mere factual causation is insufficient; legal dependence on an employee's injury is required to bar a third-party claim. More broadly, it establishes a critical precedent for the application of the Rowland v. Christian factors in determining a duty of care in novel contexts, particularly concerning mass torts and highly transmissible diseases. The court's willingness to prioritize the societal burden and economic consequences over high foreseeability in the context of COVID-19 liability sets a high bar for establishing new duties of care in public health crises, likely influencing future cases involving widespread harm where causation is complex and the potential for litigation is enormous.
