Top
Stories
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: Getting Them to Stay February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: See Where Workers Are Saying 'See Ya' February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: A Shrinking Pool of Job Candidates February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the Hawaiian Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the McDonald's Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Defending Diversity February 8, 2013
Featured Article Retirement Showdown February 7, 2013
Featured Article Visa Program Sparks Debate—Again February 7, 2013
Featured Article Homeward Bound February 7, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Workplace Social Media Policies Must Account for Generational Issues February 7, 2013
Blog: Work in Progress Kiss and Tell February 6, 2013
Latest News

Worker's Loss-Of-Consortium Tort Claim Cannot Proceed: Court

  • By Sheena Harrison
  • Published: August 21, 2012
  • Comments (0)
Related Topics:

The wife of a California worker cannot pursue a tort claim against his employer for injuries that prevented him from performing "necessary duties as a husband," the California Supreme Court said August 20.

O'Neil Watrous worked for Santa Fe Springs, California-based LeFiell Manufacturing Co. and was injured while operating a FENN 5f swaging machine, court records show.

California's labor law permits injured workers to sue employers for damages outside of workers' compensation in certain instances. One provision, Section 4558, allows employees to sue when their injuries were "proximately caused by the employer's knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install" protective guards on a power-press machine, such as the FENN 5f.

Watrous and his wife, Nidia Watrous, sued LeFiell for alleged negligence, products liability and for violating Section 4558 of the California labor code. Nidia Watrous also sued LeFiell for loss of consortium, arguing that her husband's injuries left him unable to manage and care for his family.

Appeals court ruling reversed

California's Court of Appeals ruled last year that Nidia Watrous' claim should stand because it was connected to O'Neil Watrous' claim of LeFiell's alleged Section 4558 violation.

The California Supreme Court unanimously reversed that ruling August 20. In its opinion, the court said Section 4558 is meant to augment California workers' comp benefits, not replace them.

In turn, the court said that O'Neil Watrous can sue for Section 4558 violations, in addition to seeking workers' comp benefits. However, it said exclusive remedy provisions prevent Nidia Watrous from pursuing a derivative claim outside of workers' comp.

Section 4558 allows suits on behalf of injured workers or their dependents if the worker dies. Because Watrous did not die from his injuries, the high court said workers' comp remains the exclusive remedy for Nidia Watrous.

The case was remanded to the state court of appeals for further consideration.

Sheena Harrison writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management's Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

Follow Workforce on Twitter
HR Jobs
View All Job Listings

Search