San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog
Does workers’ compensation cover an assault at work?
A work-related assault can qualify for workers’ compensation benefits. The starting question is whether the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, not simply whether it happened inside a workplace. A fight over job assignments presents different issues from a purely personal dispute unrelated to either person’s work. An incident in a parking lot, during a break, or near a picket line requires examination of what the employee was doing and how the injury related to employment.
California Labor Code section 3600 establishes the conditions for coverage. It also excludes injuries arising from an altercation in which the injured employee was the initial physical aggressor. An accurate summary of how the confrontation began is therfore important. When workers’ compensation applies, it generally replaces an ordinary personal injury lawsuit against your employer, subject to exceptions. This is called the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy rule. See Labor Code section 3602.
Can you sue a coworker who intentionally attacked you?
Potentially, yes—even if you also qualify for workers’ compensation. Labor Code section 3601(a)(1) permits a civil action against a coworker whose “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression” caused the injury. In Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, the California Supreme Court held that this exception generally requires an intent to injure. An intentional punch aimed at hurting someone is different from a typical accidental injury. The evidence should establish what the attacker did, what happened immediately beforehand, and whether the attacker claims self-defense. Witness accounts, threats, and recordings of the entire encounter are often more useful than a short clip showing only its final seconds.
A viable claim and a collectible recovery are also different things. Before pursuing a legal claim against the attacker individually, it is important to determine whether there is a realistic chance to collect.
Does the employer have to pay because the attacker was its employee?
Not automatically. If workers’ compensation covers your injury, the exception allowing you to sue an attacking coworker does not by itself allow you to recover those damages from your employer. In Fretland v. County of Humboldt (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1486–1489, the court rejected an attempt to impose employer liability merely because the coworker’s assault allegedly occurred within the scope of employment.
When can the employer itself be sued?
Labor Code section 3602(b)(1) provides an exception for a willful physical assault by the employer. Evidence that the employer directed or participated in the attack can therefore change the analysis. Fretland also recognizes potential liability where the employer ratifies the assault, meaning it knowingly adopts or approves the conduct as its own. The court found insufficient evidence of ratification in that case. Employer approval must be supported by specific facts. A disappointing HR response or the attacker’s continued employment does not automatically establish ratification. The attacker’s authority, management’s knowledge, and management’s actual response all deserve investigation.
What if you did not work for the attacker’s employer?
This can make a substantial difference. A customer, visitor, or employee of a separate business generally does not face the same workers’ compensation barrier against the attacker’s employer. Actual employment relationships still need verification, particularly with staffing agencies and borrowed workers. The issue may instead be whether the assault grew out of the attacker’s work. In Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 652, a contractor’s employee threw a hammer at a subcontractor’s employee during a dispute over their work. The California Supreme Court held that the employment connection supported employer liability.
But employment must do more than provide the opportunity for an attack. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291 explains that a sufficient connection between the misconduct and employment is required. A company uniform, company vehicle, or workplace location alone does not settle the issue.
Can you receive workers’ compensation and pursue a lawsuit?
Sometimes. Labor Code section 3852 preserves claims against responsible third parties, subject to certain limitations such as the coworker rules discussed above. For example, an employee injured by an outside delivery driver may have both a workers’ compensation claim and a claim against the driver or delivery company. The claims must be coordinated. The workers’ compensation employer or insurer may have reimbursement rights affecting a civil case recovery. Having two claims does not mean receiving duplicate payment for the same loss.
Evaluating a California workplace assault claim
The most useful initial question is which claims are available against which people or businesses. We regularly evaluate potential California personal injury and employment claims arising from workplace assaults. To request a consultation, provide a brief summary of the incident, identify both parties’ employers, and describe the available witnesses, recordings, injuries suffered and medical treatment received so far, and we will follow up with you as soon as possible.