Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
August 22, 2023
In a recent decision of the California Supreme Court, the court held that an employer owed no duty of care to an employee’s spouse when the employee contracted COVID-19 at work and passed it along to his wife. See Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., No. S274191 (Cal., July 6, 2023). The court opined that “recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy.”
Case Background
Robert Kuciemba worked for Victory Woodworks (Victory) in San Francisco. He contracted COVID-19 while at work, allegedly because Victory transferred to Kuciemba’s worksite a group of workers from another site who may have been exposed to the virus. Kuciemba contracted COVID-19 and was hospitalized. He allegedly transmitted the virus to his wife, Corby. She was hospitalized for several weeks.
The Kuciembas sued Victory. Corby sued for her illness and Robert sued for loss of consortium.[1] The court dismissed the case, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Act was Corby’s exclusive remedy for her claims and that Victory’s duty to provide a safe workplace did not extend to nonemployees.
Two Certified Questions for the California Supreme Court
The Kuciembas appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the California Supreme Court:
The California Supreme Court Answers No to Both Questions
As for the workers’ compensation question, the court held that Corby’s negligence claim for her own injury did not require that she allege or prove that Robert suffered an injury. Thus, it was not a “derivative injury” limited to workers’ compensation.
As for the duty of care, the court held that 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.” However, the court declined to impose a duty of care on employers in the COVID-19 context because of “the significant and unpredictable burden that recognizing a duty of care would impose on California businesses, the court system, and the community at large.”
Specifically, the court noted that (a) many COVID-19 precautions depend upon the compliance of employees; (b) employers have no control over the safety precautions that employees take outside of the workplace; and (c) employers have no control over an employee’s awareness or report of exposure to COVID-19. The court concluded that, exposing employers to tort liability under these circumstances could lead to adverse consequences for the community. For example, employers might adopt COVID-19 precautions that would slow or shut down essential services. Additionally, the duty of care, if imposed, would extend to every California employer and “the pool of potential plaintiffs would be enormous,” leading to a “deluge of lawsuits.”
Employer Takeaways
Because of the uniqueness and breadth of the issues raised by COVID-19, the California Supreme Court did not extend an employer’s duty of care to non-employees in the COVID-19 context. However, employers continue to have a duty to provide a safe workplace and continue to have an obligation to abide by public health directives at the federal, state, or local level.
[1] California’s Civil Jury Instructions define “loss of consortium” as: “The loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support, losing the enjoyment of sexual relation, or the ability to have children.”
*Special thanks to Brooke Palma, our Office Administrator, for her contributions to this article.
The author of this article, Patricia Tsipras, is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in California, Pennsylvania, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
