In a Second District of California Court of Appeal case in Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc.(CA2/8 B247080 1/30/15), the court reviewed the appeal of Plaintiff and appellant Wilfredo Velasquez appealed from a judgment after jury trial of his product-related personal injury action.  Velasquez alleged his lung disease was caused by workplace exposure to a chemical compound, diacetyl, that was distributed by defendant and respondent Centrome, Inc. dba Advanced Biotech (Advanced).  Earlier, the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s special verdict which included findings, as to multiple causes of action, that Advanced’s acts were not a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez.

After finding the issue relevant to Velasquez’s ability to receive a lung transplant, the trial judge advised the prospective jurors during jury selection that Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant.  Velasquez claimd the jurors who decided his case were incapable of being fair given their knowledge of his immigration status.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred when it disclosed Velasquez’s undocumented immigrant status to the venire of prospective jurors, and in denying a motion for mistrial.  The Court of Appeal found the denial of Velasquez’s motion for mistrial requires that the judgment be reversed. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B247080.PDF

 

In Wright v. St. of CA (CA1/2 A139034 1/30/15) the First District of California Court of Appeal took on the found that an employee who was living on his or her employer’s property would be allowed to bring tort claims in an employment case against his or her employer even where he had recovered in his or her workers’ compensation case against the employer.

Plaintiff Monnie Wright was a correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin), who lived on the San Quentin premises, in a unit he rented from his employer, defendant State of California (State).  Wright was injured when he fell in the course of his lengthy walk from his home to his actual place of work.  Following his injury, Wright sought workers’ compensation, and received it.  He thereafter filed suit against the State, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers’ compensation was Wright’s exclusive remedy, an argument based on the “premises line” rule, which provides that the employment relationship commences once the employee enters the employer’s premises.  The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed, concluding that it was error to hold Wright’s tort claim barred solely because he was on his employer’s premises at the time of his fall, particularly where Wright lived on those very premises.  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A139034.PDF