Personal Injury Legal Theories

When an employee is injured in a California workplace accident, they will likely miss a substantial amount of work and may have significant medical expenses related to their injury. When it comes to recovering financially for injuries sustained in a California on-the-job accident, injured workers generally have two avenues of recovery: a workers’ compensation claim or a third-party personal injury lawsuit.

A workers’ compensation claim is designed to be a quick and efficient way to get an injured employee compensation for their injuries. The workers’ compensation program is a no-fault program, meaning that an employee does not need to establish that their injury was caused by the negligence of their employer or a fellow employee. However, workers’ compensation claims do not permit the recovery of damages related to an employee’s pain and suffering, which can be considerable.

An injured employee’s other option is to file a third-party personal injury claim against the party responsible for causing their injuries. Injured employees who file third-party injury claims will need to establish that the named defendant was somehow negligent and that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of their injuries. If successful, an injured employee who files a third-party personal injury claim may be entitled to compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering that was caused by the accident. In some cases involving “oppression, fraud, or malice,” the injured employee may also be eligible for punitive damages.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California personal injury case discussing how trial courts should treat potentially conflicting testimony from a witness. The case arose in the context of allegations made by the plaintiff that the defendant manufacturer caused his asbestos-related illnesses while he was employed for a public utility. The main issue in the appeal was whether the lower court was proper in disregarding the plaintiff’s witness testimony based on the fact that it could be interpreted as being self-contradictory.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked for PG&E in the 1980s, and as a part of his employment, he was responsible for replacing gaskets. The defendant manufactured gaskets that, at that time, were sold to PG&E and contained asbestos. The plaintiff’s lawsuit named approximately 50 defendants, but this appeal focused only on one.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff presented a witness who worked for PG&E at the same time as the plaintiff. The witness first testified through a deposition that was held well in advance of trial. During the deposition, the witness explained that he was responsible for ordering the gaskets for PG&E during the time when the plaintiff was employed there, that he ordered gaskets from the defendant, that some of those gaskets were later discovered to contain asbestos, and that he personally saw the plaintiff working with the gaskets.

Articles Posted in Personal Injury Legal Theories

Third-Party Workplace Injury Lawsuits and California’s Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule

California Court Discusses Potentially Conflicting Witness Testimony