July 10, 2023
This past Thursday, the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, ruled that employers aren’t liable for their employees contracting COVID-19 at work and spreading it to their family members, even if the employer was negligent in its safety practices. Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks
Corby Kuciemba sought compensation from Victory for her month-long hospital stay for COVID-19 complications after her husband brought the virus home from his construction job.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after taking the case, asked for the opinion of the California Supreme Court.[1] The opinion it handed down this week is expected to be a key factor in how the appeals court decides.
The lawsuit was originally filed in late 2020 in state court but was moved to federal district court, where it was dismissed on the grounds the company’s duty to provide a safe workplace didn’t extend to non-employees.
Key to the decision is the scope of COVID-19, the court said. Unlike something like asbestos, where workers can bring home fibers and cause cancer in a family member, COVID-19 is potentially everywhere, making every employer a potential defendant. Asbestos, by contrast, is limited to those employers who work with the material and the cancer that can be caused by it is rare, even among those who are exposed to it.
The duty of care is also outweighed by COVID’s scope. Although employers can be expected to have a duty of care to the extent they know of COVID and of measures to take to curb its spread, the burden on employers, and even on the wider community, including the court system, is too broad in the case of COVID.
“While the foreseeability factors and the policy factor of moral blame largely tilt in favor of finding a duty of care, the policy factors of preventing future harm and the anticipated burdens on defendants and the community weigh against imposing such a duty,” the court stated.
The court concluded “In addition to dire financial consequences for employers and a possibly broader social impact, the potential litigation explosion facilitated by a duty to prevent COVID-19 infections in household members would place significant burdens on the judicial system and, ultimately, the community . . . If there was ever a “floodgates” situation, this is it.”
The federal appellate court will now apply the law to the facts, consider any remaining issues, and determines whether to remand to a lower federal court or agency. While the state court’s opinion is binding precedent as to state law — the same as if it had been issued in a different case — and may, under state certification rules, be res judicata as to the parties — the federal court enters judgment as a matter of its own authority under federal law.
[1] Federal appellate courts are generally tasked with interpreting and applying federal law. However, in cases where the outcome of a federal case may turn on the interpretation or application of state law, the federal court may choose to seek guidance from the highest court in that state. This is especially true when the state law question is complex, novel, or lacks clear precedent. This process is known as certification of a question of law.
By certifying a question of law to the state supreme court, the federal appellate court is essentially requesting the state court’s authoritative interpretation of the law. The state supreme court then has the option to accept or decline the certification request. If it accepts, it will provide its opinion on the specific legal question presented. The federal appellate court will then consider that opinion in deciding the case.