{"id":"DUT-CA-020","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"California","state":"CA","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of California (Corrigan, J., for a unanimous court)","authority":"Civil Code section 1714; Labor Code sections 3600, 3602; the City and County of San Francisco health officer\u0027s order of April 29, 2020 (construction jobsite requirements); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548 (questions certified by the Ninth Circuit)","instrument":"Opinion: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., No. S274191 (Cal. July 6, 2023), 14 Cal.5th 993","title":"Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks: employers \u0027allowed to continue operations during this time were subject to strict regulations designed to limit transmission of the virus\u0027; the county health order \u0027mandated specific health and safety precautions\u0027; the employer remains under \u0027the default duty to use due care in its operations\u0027; no tort duty runs to employees\u0027 household members","dateIssued":"2023-07-06","effective":"2023-07-06","end":"n/a (judicial decision; describes the regime of 2020)","startDate":"2023-07-06","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":["DUTY","EMP"],"addressees":["employers (permitted to continue operating under the health orders)"],"clause":"employers allowed to continue operations during this time were subject to strict regulations designed to limit transmission of the virus. As relevant here, the City and County of San Francisco\u0027s April 29, 2020 health order mandated specific health and safety precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction jobsites.... does not exempt Victory from the default duty to use due care","enforcement":"Civil liability to employees under Civil Code section 1714 and workers\u0027 compensation; the court held no tort duty to nonemployee household members.","functions":[],"notes":"The State\u0027s highest court, describing the legal position of an employer permitted to keep operating in 2020, held that such employers \u0027were subject to strict regulations\u0027 whose \u0027mandated\u0027 precautions included daily symptom screening, distancing \u0027except as strictly necessary for the work\u0027, immediate removal of infected workers and sanitizing of their areas, staggered trades, personal protective equipment and ventilation, and that the employer remained under the general duty of due care to avoid foreseeable injury; the court declined to extend that duty to household members on policy grounds. Character as recorded: adjudication (workplace duty construed).","sourceUrl":"https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S274191.PDF","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":584226,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-CA","url":"/library/DUT-CA-020","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-CA-020","citation":"Supreme Court of California (Corrigan, J., for a unanimous court), Opinion: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., No. S274191 (Cal. July 6, 2023), 14 Cal.5th 993 (Ex. DUT-CA-020)","stateName":"California","related":["DUT-CA-004","DUT-CA-013","DUT-CA-019"]}