The California Supreme Court has scheduled an oral argument for May 9 in the matter of Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks. The court had accepted the request of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to answer a question of state law regarding employers' liability in COVID claims.

Jon L. Gelman

The case raises the important question of whether employers can be liable for COVID-19 infections that spread from the workplace to employees' homes. The outcome of this case could significantly impact employers nationwide, as it could establish a new legal precedent for holding employers responsible for the spread of infectious diseases in the workplace.

In Kuciemba, the plaintiffs are the wife and adult son of an employee who contracted COVID-19 and brought the virus home to them. The plaintiffs allege that the employer's negligence in failing to take adequate precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 caused their injuries. The employer argues that it has no legal duty to protect non-employees from the spread of infectious diseases and that the derivative injury doctrine, therefore, bars the plaintiffs' claims.

The U.S. District Court for the North District of California dismissed the case in an unpublished decision, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks Inc. An appeal was taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court requested the California Supreme Court to decide two questions of state law: whether derivative injury doctrine barred the spouse's claims and whether the employer owed the spouse the duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The derivative injury doctrine

The derivative injury doctrine is a legal principle that prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for injuries caused by the negligence of another person but also caused by the plaintiff's own negligence. In the context of COVID-19, the derivative injury doctrine would bar the plaintiffs from recovering damages from their employer if they themselves could have taken steps to protect themselves from the virus, such as getting vaccinated or wearing a mask.

The California Supreme Court must decide whether the derivative injury doctrine applies to COVID-19 cases. If the court finds that the doctrine does apply, then the plaintiffs in Kuciemba will likely be barred from recovering damages from the employer. However, if the court finds that the doctrine does not apply, the plaintiffs could recover damages.

Household contacts

The concept of litigation by a household contact is longstanding. A negligence action can be brought by the household contact directly against the employer. The case is similar to the claims right by family members of asbestos workers who brought fiber home on their clothes, contaminated the household environment and subjected the household members to diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, a landowner can be liable for injuries allegedly caused by asbestos exposure experienced by the spouse of a worker who had performed welding and steam fitting tasks that brought him into contact with asbestos on the landowner's premises.

National impact

The outcome of Kuciemba could guide other states nationwide on this issue. If the court finds that employers have a legal duty to protect nonemployees from spreading infectious diseases, employers could be liable for COVID-19 infections that spread from the workplace to employees' homes. This could lead to increased safety precautions imposed by employers to protect both their employees and their household contacts.

Therefore, the California Supreme Court's decision in Kuciemba is important. The outcome of this case could guide other state courts, significantly impact employers nationwide and help shape the legal landscape for COVID-19 litigation.

Claimants' attorney Jon L. Gelman is the author of "New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law" and co-author of the national treatise "Modern Workers’ Compensation Law." He is based in Wayne, New Jersey. This blog post is republished with permission.