Question: One of my employees is stating he contracted COVID-19 at work and his spouse and child then got COVID-19. Does my company have a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to an employee’s household members?
Answer: No. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that employers do not owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to an employees’ household members
In Kuciemba v. Victory Woodwork, Inc., an employee’s spouse alleged that she became infected with COVID-19 because her husband’s employer failed to follow San Francisco county’s required COVID-19 precautions. The husband transmitted COVID-19 to his wife, who was hospitalized and placed on a respirator. A lawsuit followed, which included various causes of action by the employee’s wife against Victory Woodwork, her husband’s employer.
The California Supreme Court was asked to address two questions:
(1) If an employee contracts COVID-19 at the workplace and brings the virus home to a spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act bar the spouse’s negligence claim against the employer; and
(2) Does an employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members?
Workers’ compensation benefits are generally the sole remedy for a family member’s claim for an injury derived from an employee’s workplace injury, and the family member cannot file a lawsuit to recover damages for a derivative injury. However, the Court stated that a family member’s claim for her own independent injury, not legally dependent on the employee’s injury, is not barred, even if both injuries were caused by the same negligent conduct of the employer. The Court concluded that the employee’s wife could proceed with her lawsuit against the employer, and her claims were not subject to the exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation law.
Next, the Court evaluated whether an employer owes a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Under California law, a defendant owes a general duty of care only when the defendant creates a risk of harm to the plaintiff. Although the Court concluded that transmission of COVID-19 to household members is a foreseeable consequence of an employer’s failure to take adequate precautions against the virus in the workplace, policy considerations require an exception to the general duty of care in this context. The Court was concerned about the “significant and unpredictable burden” on businesses, the court system, and the community from the potential deluge of such lawsuits, and the difficulties in proving such cases. The Court focused on policy considerations and wrote, “although it is foreseeable that an employer’s negligence in permitting workplace spread of COVID-19 will cause members of employees’ households to contract the disease, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy.”
An employer may not have a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members, but employers must still comply with legal requirements addressing COVID-19 in the workplace. While California’s COVID-19 State of Emergency ended on February 28, 2023, employers should still follow the remaining state and local COVID-19 related requirements, such as California’s COVID-19 Infection Prevention Non-Emergency Regulations, which are effective until February 3, 2025.