> >
| Case Name | Tapia et al., v. Dresden et al. | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 08/30/2010 | |
| Note | Exclusive remedy did not bar an injured worker's suit against a property owner because the general contractor on the job did not have a valid license or workers' compensation coverage, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded. | |
| Citation | C061925 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 36612010 CA |
Filed 8/30/10 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (Sacramento) C061925 (Superior Ct. No. 34200800024335CUPOGDS) Jorge Tapia et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Karl Dresden et al. , Defendants and Respondents. First, they asserted that because Jorges cause of action was precluded by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, Glorias cause of action was likewise precluded. The court concluded that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue the owner or hirer for injuries on the job. Also, while the Ungas did not have workers compensation coverage, workers compensation benefits were nonetheless available to Jorge. DISCUSSION I Standard Of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.
