The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Second-Hand COVID Claims Aren't Barred by Worker's Compensation Law
So the California Court of Appeal held three weeks ago, in See's Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court. Generally speaking, worker's compensation laws provide that workers are compensated for on-the-job injury with no need to prove fault on the employer's part—but the flip side of this "worker's compensation bargain" is that they can't sue employers in court for further damages based on such on-the-job injuries.
But what if an employee gets COVID at work, and then the employee's family members (or others) get infected as a result? (Here, a man's wife—who was the one had been allegedly infected at work—and children are suing because the man died after having been infected by the wife.) Can they sue the employer, claiming the employer was negligent in its COVID prevention practices, or are they also blocked by the worker's compensation bargain?
Yes, they can sue, held the Court of Appeal, citing some contagious disease cases from past appellate decisions, and rejecting several recent COVID trial court cases that came down against liability.
The claim of employer negligence, by the way, is that the employer had employees "working without appropriate and necessary social distancing on the packing line" and "using restrooms and break-rooms at times inches [or] only a few feet from other workers, some of whom were coughing [and] sneezing." Naturally, the plaintiff would also have to prove causation, which is often difficult for such airborne illnesses, but might not be so hard given how early in the epidemic this was (March 2020). I think the defendant could also argue that the wife may have been partly negligent as well (depending on the facts), but would just diminish the plaintiffs' recovery, rather than cutting it off entirely.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The decision distinguishes between derivative injuries based only on the employee's injury (my husband got sick/impotent/dead and I am busy/horny/upset) and a hypothetical duty not to let employees catch contagious diseases lest they infect non-employees. Unless we go to New Zealand style mandatory personal injury insurance I think the court drew the right line based on the question presented.
The precautions mostly don’t work. (They sometimes help a very little bit, statistically — not provably in any individual case.)
It’s like a "duty" to knock wood or throw salt over your shoulder or mandate wearing a magic talisman to work.
The defendants still have a chance to make that and related arguments.
Since most everyone who died of Covid had multiple co-morbidities, that should also limit the liability. Employer didn’t give the guy diabetes or make him fat or any of the other health problems he likely had.
The "eggshell skull" rule leaves the defendant on the hook for actual damages once liability is established. The value of a life could be less if the guy only had a few years to live due to poor health. Depends on the emotions of the jury.
Do plaintiffs actually ever win in these situations?
Because if plaintiffs can ever expect to win due to illness spreading, then no one can afford to conduct any business until there are no more airborne illnesses.
The lawyer is looking at an upside of a million or so in contingent fees, plus a pipeline of future cases if this case sets the precedent that employers are liable for spreading COVID. It could be worth 5% chance of jackpot and 20% chance of a settlement big enough to pay the office staff.
I am guessing that if the case proceeds the companies settles.
Unless they can settle for an amount that would leave the lawyer without any significant payday, I would guess not.
Otherwise, if all their other employees families sue on the same grounds it will bankrupt them. No business could sustain against that.
So nevermind justice or the inevitable consequences to thousands of innocent retail businesses, lawyer$ $seein’ dollar$.