 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Department of Transportation2/15/2002
ffs attempt to distinguish this case from Arendell by contending that "injury resulting from the employer failing to take adequate security measures" was foreseeable because the employees worked in a high crime area. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the Arendell court did not consider the foreseeability of harm to employees in determining whether the exclusivity rule applied. Instead, the court simply applied the "`tripartite system for classifying injuries arising in the course of employment,'" as set forth under Fermino.
Plaintiffs also attempt to distinguish Arendell by arguing that, " nlike the employer in Arendell, the conduct of Caltrans in this case is contrary to fundamental public policy and sound morality." It appears that plaintiffs assume that Caltrans' actions of violating the building code and refusing requests to take safety measures violate "fundamental public policy." Issues regarding workplace safety, however, do not rise to a violation of fundamental public policy. Plaintiffs have failed to provide us with any authority that would persuade us otherwise.
Plaintiffs further attempt to distinguish this case from Arendell, by arguing that Caltrans' "misconduct," in "violating its own Building Code, refusing to allow Bierlein to park in a safer place, and refusing to do anything to protect its employees from a former employee who repeatedly threatened his former co-workers," cannot be viewed as being within the compensation bargain between Caltrans and its employees. We disagree. Caltrans' decisions regarding workplace safety are precisely the type of judgment calls an employer is expected to make within the ordinary course of business.
The trial court's statement on this issue is apt:
"This is a case of workplace safety. The stipulated facts demonstrate that this was intentional conduct by a third person, Arturo Torres, not [Caltrans]. The acts and omissions of [Caltrans] in failing to guard against the selfish and heinous rampage of Torres may or may not have been a substantial factor in the deaths of the decedents, but that is not to be determined. The conduct of the employer here, the acts and omissions alleged, may have had a horrific result, but the conduct of the employer centers around providing or failing to provide a safe place to work, and is within the compensation bargain. The Legislature has enacted law listing only a few, narrowly drawn, exacting exceptions to workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy (Labor Code Section 3602; see also BAJI [No.] 15.13) that permit Plaintiffs to sue [Caltrans] in a civil lawsuit as opposed to the Workers' Compensation forum. [ ] This case, tragic as it is, does not qualify for one of those narrow exceptions and the facts do not invoke any fundamental public policy requiring application of a judicial exception by the trial court."
Although we join in the trial court's sentiment that the events that transpired at Caltrans were tragic, this civil action is barred by the exclusivity rule of the Act.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
We concur:
Ramirez P.J.
Richli J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|