Corby Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 31f4th1268

In March 2020 San Francisco issued a shelter-in-place order; a revised Health Order months later allowed construction to resume subject to safety requirements to limit COVID-19 spread.
Robert Kuciemba worked for Victory Woodworks at a San Francisco jobsite; plaintiffs allege Victory transferred workers from an infected site to his site and failed to follow Health Order safety procedures.
Robert allegedly contracted COVID-19 at work and transmitted it at home to his wife, Corby Kuciemba, a high-risk patient who was hospitalized and placed on a respirator.
The Kuciembas sued Victory in California state court for negligence, negligence per se, and premises liability (and Robert for loss of consortium); Victory removed to federal court.
The district court dismissed, holding (1) Corby’s claims were barred by California’s derivative injury doctrine and (2) Victory owed no duty of care to Corby; the Kuciembas appealed.
The Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the California Supreme Court (and stayed the case): (1) whether the derivative injury doctrine bars a spouse’s claim arising from an employee’s workplace COVID-19 infection, and (2) whether an employer owes a duty to employees’ households to exercise ordinary care to prevent COVID-19 spread.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether California’s derivative injury doctrine bars a spouse’s claim when an employee contracts COVID-19 at work and transmits it to the spouse	The derivative-injury doctrine is limited (per Snyder) to claims that legally require proof of a primary employee injury (e.g., loss of consortium); a spouse’s direct personal-injury claim is not barred	Salin-era view: claims that in fact flow from an employee’s workplace injury are derivative and barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity	Ninth Circuit did not decide; it certified the question to the California Supreme Court and stayed proceedings
Whether an employer owes a duty to employees’ households to exercise ordinary care to prevent spread of COVID-19	Employers can owe such a duty; public policy does not compel an exception that absolves employers from liability for infecting household members	Public-policy concerns counsel against imposing potentially broad, limitless liability on employers for third-party household infections	Ninth Circuit did not decide; it certified the question to the California Supreme Court and stayed proceedings

Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 945 P.2d 781 (Cal. 1997) (discusses scope of derivative-injury doctrine and exclusivity of workers’ compensation)
Salin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 185 Cal. Rptr. 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (older case interpreting derivative-injury doctrine broadly)
See’s Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 288 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Court of Appeal held derivative-injury doctrine did not bar spouse’s COVID-19 claims in similar facts)
Kesner v. Superior Ct., 384 P.3d 283 (Cal. 2016) (refused to create an employer immunity exception for asbestos take-home exposures; informs public-policy analysis)
King v. CompPartners, Inc., 423 P.3d 975 (Cal. 2018) (describes tradeoffs of workers’ compensation exclusivity)
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 834 P.2d 745 (Cal. 1992) (discusses courts’ role in limiting duty of care on public-policy grounds)