## Facts

- During early COVID-19 public health orders in San Francisco, Victory Woodworks operated a construction jobsite subject to masking, distancing, and cleaning requirements.
- Robert Kuciemba worked at the jobsite while the orders were in effect.
- After COVID-19 cases arose at another Victory worksite, Victory allegedly reassigned workers from that site to Robert’s site without requiring quarantine; at least one reassigned worker was allegedly infected.
- Robert allegedly contracted COVID-19 at work and brought the virus home.
- Corby Kuciemba, Robert’s spouse, allegedly contracted COVID-19 from Robert, became severely ill, and required hospitalization.
- The Kuciembas sued Victory for negligence in federal court, alleging failure to comply with health orders and workplace safety measures.
- The federal district court dismissed the complaint; the Ninth Circuit certified two questions of California law to the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Does the California Workers’ Compensation Act bar a nonemployee spouse’s negligence claim when the spouse allegedly contracts COVID-19 through workplace transmission to the employee?
2. Under California law, does an employer owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members?

## Decision

- The court answered Issue 1: No; workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar the spouse’s claim because the spouse alleged an injury independent of, and not legally dependent on, an injury to the employee.
- The court answered Issue 2: No; employers do not owe a tort duty to household members to prevent “take-home COVID-19” transmission.
- As applied in the federal case, the lack of duty meant the negligence claim failed despite not being barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity bars third-party claims only when the third party’s injury is legally dependent on, or derivative of, the employee’s workplace injury (e.g., loss of consortium); it does not bar a nonemployee’s claim for an independent injury merely because it is causally connected to workplace exposure.
- California’s general duty rule (Civil Code § 1714) may be limited by policy factors (Rowland factors), including the risk of indeterminate liability, burdens on defendants and courts, and community consequences.
- In the COVID-19 context, foreseeability of household transmission does not justify imposing a duty on employers where doing so would create broad and unpredictable liability given widespread community transmission and difficulties of tracing causation.
- The absence of a tort duty to household members defeats negligence claims for take-home COVID-19 even when workers’ compensation exclusivity does not apply.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that a spouse’s take-home COVID-19 negligence claim is not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity because it alleges an independent injury, but the claim still fails because California law imposes no employer duty to protect employees’ household members from COVID-19 transmission allegedly brought home from the workplace.


Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 531 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2023)