Workers’ Compensation Remains Exclusive Remedy for City Worker Injured By Fellow City Worker
In Matthew Vann v City and County of San Francisco, the California Court of Appeal, First District, rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to do an end run around the exclusive remedy rule, holding that the San Francisco Fire Department was part of the City and County of San Francisco, barring him from suit.
The Court found Workers’ compensation was exclusive remedy for San Francisco firefighter injured on the job in accident caused by municipal bus driver in scope of his employment because they were co-employees of the same city.
On November 2, 2020, appellant Vann, a firefighter with the San Francisco Fire Department (“SFFD”), responded to an emergency on Spear Street in the City and County of San Francisco (“City”). Yu, a bus driver with San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”), then drove a bus through the location of an active emergency. The bus went over a firehose, which became entangled with the bus’s wheels and stretched until it broke off the fire engine it was attached to. When the firehose broke away, it hit appellant’s legs, sweeping him off his feet and causing him to slam backwards onto the ground. His helmet flew off, and the back of his head struck the street surface. Appellant sustained catastrophic injuries.
Appellant then received a ‘Notice of Disability Pay’ from the City stating the City is handling the Worker’s Compensation Claim. Appellant filed a complaint against Yu and the City (“Respondents”) alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligence per se. Respondents filed a demurrer on grounds that the exclusive remedy for appellant’s claims against the City as his employer and Yu as his co-employee. As such, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Appellant argued workers’ compensation was not the exclusive remedy, because (1) Appellant and Yu were not co-employees of the City because they worked for different departments and (2) SFFD and SFMTA were separate legal entities. The demurrer was sustained in favor of the City finding the SFFD and SFMTA were not separate legal entities.
The first issue the Court determined was whether the SFFD and SFMTA were separate legal entities. If they were separate entities, then Workers’ Compensation is not the exclusive remedy as highlighted in Section 3600 ‘Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule’. “When the statutory conditions for recovery are met, the employer is immune from civil damages liability for on-the-job injuries because workers’ compensation is the injured employee’s “exclusive remedy”. Sections 3600, 3601 et al. The exclusive remedy rule is an affirmative defense to an action at law such as a complaint for negligence and damages as provided here. The Court found through review of municipal codes and legislative materials the SFFD and SFMTA had no governing bodies separate from the city, county or relevant district nor had statutory power to own property, levy taxes et. nor contained an express declaration of a separate body corporate as required to determine separate entity status. See Bauer v. County of Ventura (1955) 45 Cal.2d 276, 288-289, Johnson v Fire Fontana County Fire Protection Dist. (1940). Therefore, they were not separate and apart legal entities and Yu and Appellant were co-employees.
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Judge Richman found that Mr. Vann’s theory that the San Francisco Fire Department not the City is his employer to be ‘Untenable.’ The holding here is appellant’s attempt to divide the City and SFFD into separate entities for purposes of Workers’ Compensation exclusivity rule fails.
The Court reiterated the concept in Torres v Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc., (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1002, stating allowing tort remedies in actions of co-employees of the City have the “effect of circumventing the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule, which prevents employees from bringing actions against fellow employees acting in the scope of employment, such that the fellow employees’ negligence could be imputed to their employers. (Torres at 1002). The main takeaway from this case in determining whether the exclusive remedy rule applies is whether the city or public entity departments: (1) had governing bodies separate from the city, county or relevant district, (2) had statutory power to own property, levy taxes et. and/or (3) contained an express declaration of a separate body corporate as required to determine separate entity status, such that they can be determined to be legally separate entities.
You can find the case here.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Nico Syren.