(a)Where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover such compensation, pursuant to the provisions of this division is, except as specifically provided in this section, the exclusive remedy for injury or death of an employee against any other employee of the employer acting within the scope of his or her employment, except that an employee, or his or her dependents in the event of his or her death, shall, in addition to the right to compensation against the employer, have a right to bring an action at law for damages against the other employee, as if this division did not apply, in either of the following cases:
(1)When the injury or death is proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression of the other employee.
(2)When the injury or death is proximately caused by the intoxication of the other employee.
(b)In no event, either by legal action or by agreement whether entered into by the other employee or on his or her behalf, shall the employer be held liable, directly or indirectly, for damages awarded against, or for a liability incurred by the other employee under paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a).
(c)No employee shall be held liable, directly or indirectly, to his or her employer, for injury or death of a coemployee except where the injured employee or his or her dependents obtain a recovery under subdivision (a).
Notes of Decisions
Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Serv., Inc., 30 P.3d 57 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 8× “I sign the majority opinion with the understanding that the intent-to-injure requirement it articulates is limited to cases like this one where the determinative factual issue is whether the plaintiffs injury was caused by a coemployee's "willful and unprovoked physical act of…”
Robles v. Agreserves, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 952 (E.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 3601 (a)(1); see Torres, 26 Cal.”
Lee v. West Kern Water Dist., 81 Cal. Comp. Cases 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “” Paragraph 41 alleges, “Plaintiff is further informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the intentional conduct of the Defendants and all of them falls within the assault exemptions to the California Workers’ Compensation Laws found in California Labor Code sections…”
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “]"); Cal. Labor Code § 3601 (a) (1971) (excepting "wilful and unprovoked physical act[s] of aggression by another employee"); Conn.”
Waste Mgmt. Inc. v. Superior Court, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “(Lab.Code, § 3601.) Nevertheless, a plaintiff who recovers workers' compensation from an employer can pursue common law tort actions against third parties for independent acts of negligence.”
Branam v. Crowder (In Re Branam), 226 B.R. 45 (9th Cir. BAP 1998).
· cites it 3× “In his answer, Branam asserted as an affirmative defense the exclusive remedy provision of Cal. Labor Code § 3601 (a)(1), which limits recovery for an assault in the workplace to compensation under the workers’ compensation laws unless the injury resulted from the other…”
Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co., 588 P.2d 811 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 2× “]” If general and special employment exist, “the injured workman can look to both employers for [workers’] compensation benefits.”
Douglas v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 42 Cal. Comp. Cases 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 3601, subd. (a).) Intentional torts have been treated as cumulative or at least alternative to workers’ compensation.”
Witt v. Jackson, 366 P.2d 641 (Cal. 1961).
· cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 3601.) Labor Code section 3852, however, authorizes an action by an employee against a third party whose negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries.”
Green v. City of Oceanside, 194 Cal. App. 3d 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “) Labor Code section 3601 provides that where the conditions of compensation concur, the right to recover compensation against another employee is, subject to two exceptions, "the exclusive remedy for injury or death of an employee.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 3601(a) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 3601(a)(1) — 2 cases
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
“]"); Cal. Labor Code § 3601 (a) (1971) (excepting "wilful and unprovoked physical act[s] of aggression by another employee"); Conn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.