What is California’s Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule?

What is California’s Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule?

In California, 工人补偿是为在履行工作相关职责的过程中受到伤害的受害者提供福利,无论谁有过错, and even if the worker’s negligence caused or contributed to their injuries.

工人的补偿确实有一个重要的警告:作为无过失福利的交换, 法律要求工人放弃对雇主提起民事诉讼的权利. This means workers’ comp is intended to be the exclusive remedy for injured workers to seek a financial recovery.


Some situations outlined by statute, accidents involving third parties who are not a worker’s employer or co-employees, 而如果雇主的行为违反了公共政策,则可能允许工人脱离工人补偿,以获得额外的补偿.

Why Does the Exclusive Remedy Rule Exist?


Since their inception over a century ago, 国家工人赔偿法提供了一种解决办法,解决了在就业中面临身体伤害风险的工人和面临民事责任造成经济损失风险的雇主之间需要作出妥协的问题.

The result is an arrangement where 雇主不管有什么过错都要承担责任,以换取工人放弃向法院起诉雇主的权利.

这一安排是在1917年修正的工人补偿工业安全法案中确立的, which was later codified in California Labor Code §§ 3600 and 3602, making workers’ compensation the “exclusive remedy” for work-related injuries.

Since that time, 已经有一些裁决和立法修订规定了排他性救济何时适用, and when it may not.

Conditions on Workers’ Compensation Liability

California Labor Code § 3600 概述了适用排他性救济必须存在的赔偿责任的基本条件.


  1. At the time of injury, employer and employee are subject to workers’ compensation. Essentially, there must be an employment relationship, and not an independent contractor relationship.
  2. At the time of injury, the employee was performing duties out of and incidental to employment, and acting within the course of employment.

Exceptions to the Workers’ Comp Exclusive Remedy Rule

1, Claims Against Third Parties

Attorneys who represent injured victims do not always handle workers’ compensation cases, but many do handle third-party claims arising from workplace accidents. These third-party claims may be filed against parties other than a worker’s employer or, under very limited circumstances, against employers.

One of the most notable exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule are claims against third parties other than a worker’s employer. Examples include:

  • Premises liability claims against negligent property owners
  • Products liability claims against manufacturers, distributors, or retailers
  • Claims against a third-party motorist responsible for a worksite auto accident
  • Claims against contractors or subcontractors on multiemployer worksites
  • 任何因第三者疏忽而引致工人受伤的情形.

2. Claims Against Employers

而针对工人雇主以外的其他方的索赔当然代表了一种可行的补偿途径, 原告的律师采取一种狭隘的方法,只针对第三方被告,并假定雇主不承担责任——特别是当工人已经申请或收到工人赔偿时,这可能会对他们自己造成伤害.

有几种情况下,工人可以在同一事件中要求并从雇主那里获得工人补偿福利和民事损害赔偿, 但从第三方收取的任何款项都将从雇主欠下的工人补偿中扣除. These include:

  1. Dual Capacity: The dual capacity exception applies when employers owe multiple duties to workers. One example includes product liability, specifically when workers are injured by a product made by their employer, 前提是他们是以消费者而不是雇主的身份获得产品(劳工法第3602(b)(3)条). 当雇主担任单独的法律角色或承担雇主-雇员关系之外的责任时,也可能适用双重能力. In Miller v. King (1993), for example, 一名原告在其工作的一间餐厅因滑倒意外受伤,向该餐厅的业主提出楼宇责任申索. Though the defense moved for summary judgment on exclusive remedy, the appellate court ruled that because the employer was a corporation, it existed separately from the individuals who the plaintiff sued.
  2. Power Press: 加州劳工法§4558规定了一个例外,适用于机器保护被移除的动力压力机. 在这种例外情况下,加州法院已经对什么构成或不构成“权力媒体”做出了裁决, and generally define them as any material-forming machine used that uses a die.
  3. Fraudulent Concealment: 如果雇主欺诈性隐瞒工人的受伤或疾病,导致伤害恶化, the employer may be subject to civil liability under California Labor Code § 3601(b)(2). Workers must prove (1) their employer knew of the injury and its work-related connection; (2) the employer concealed that knowledge from the worker; and (3) the worker’s injury was aggravated by the fraudulent concealment.
  4. Employer Assault or Ratification: 如果工人因雇主的故意人身攻击而受伤,他们可以向雇主提出索赔(加州劳工法第3602(b)条)。. Courts have held an employer must have used force or violence, 或伴随着暴力威胁的肢体运动(挥舞武器并威胁要开枪), and acted with specific intent to cause injury. 如果雇主“批准”一名工人对另一名工人的攻击,也可以根据这一例外提出索赔.
  5. Uninsured Employer: 根据《十大电子游艺平台首选》规定,雇主未能取得及维持劳工补偿保险, exclusive remedy does not apply, and employers can be held civilly liable (California Labor Code § 3706). Indeed where the employer is uninsured, 有一个可反驳的假设,即雇主的疏忽造成了工人的伤害.

In addition to statutory exceptions, there may exist other situations that preclude employer immunity in work accident cases. 这种情况通常涉及的雇主的行为违反了公共政策,超出了“赔偿谈判的范围”(Fermino v. Fedco, 7 Cal.4th 70).

Examples may include false imprisonment, sexual harassment, disability discrimination, defamation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Searching Outside of Exclusive Remedy to Maximize Compensation

原告的律师欢迎受伤的工人来他们的业务必须配备必要的洞察加州劳动法和工作场所事故诉讼, 并将需要进行彻底的调查,以确定客户的选择,以寻求补充补偿以外的工人补偿. 这包括针对第三方的民事索赔和针对雇主的民事索赔,前提是满足专属救济例外的条件.

At Biren Law Group, 十大电子游艺平台首选父子法律团队擅长处理工作场所事故和第三方案件. Our firm is available to discuss potential claims from workers, families, and fellow attorneys across Los Angeles and Southern California. Contact us to speak with a lawyer.


Free, No-Risk Consultation

We're ready to fight on your behalf. Request an appointment with our attorneys today.
    • Please enter your name.
    • Please enter your email address.
      This isn't a valid email address.
    • This isn't a valid phone number.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please enter a message.