LITIGATION
Examining the Ripple Effects of California Supreme Court Ruling on “Take-home COVID” By JONATHAN J. BROWN AND CORINNE D. SPENCER
T
he Supreme Court of California has provided much-needed clarity on the issue of “take-home COVID” liability. More specifically, the Court ruled in July that the employer does not owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to their employees’ household members. In Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., the Court acknowledged the evolving nature of the COVID-19 situation and hinted that the calculus
14
TODAYSGENERALCOUNSEL.COM
might change in the future. Perhaps the Court was signaling that its public policy analysis could shift in favor of employees should the severity of the virus’s symptoms increase, while the volume of cases dissipates. The decision also raises the question of how the Court will address future illnesses and pandemics.
THE “TAKE-HOME COVID” BACKSTORY Following the 2022 decision in See’s
JANUARY 2024
Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court, which found that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not necessarily bar a “take-home COVID” civil suit, employers became concerned about potential liability when COVID-19 spreads from the workplace to their employees’ households. The exclusive remedy doctrine, rooted in the 1917 California Workers’ Compensation Act, shields employers from civil liability in exchange for no-fault workers’ BACK TO CONTENTS
