When you think of terrible court decisions, the state of California should top your list as they just added one more terrible ruling for the record books.
Why are so many coming out of California? Progressive activists “shop” liberal judges when wanting to advance a radical law, expecting to get a positive ruling from them.
Even if the judge’s rulings are overturned, they believe they can appeal their cases all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The “Gay marriage” case is a good example of how the left has used the system to their advantage.
On Tuesday, a California state appeals court ruled that a candymaker must face a lawsuit by an employee who says she caught COVID-19 at work and gave it to her husband, resulting in his death. This appears to be the first ruling allowing a worker’s lawsuit against an employer over a family member’s COVID death.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, rejected South San Francisco-based See’s Candies’ argument that the employee, Matilde Ek, must file for workers’ compensation rather than seek damages in court because of her husband’s death was “derivative” of her own workplace injury.
Ek and her three daughters sued See’s last year, saying she contracted COVID-19 because the company failed to ensure safety in the workplace. Her husband, Arturo Ek, then got the disease from her while she was convalescing at home, and eventually died from it, she said.
See’s responded that Arturo Ek’s death was “derivative” of Ek’s alleged workplace injury. That meant it was covered by workers’ compensation, and Ek could not sue over it in court, the company said.
A trial court nonetheless allowed the case to go forward. See’s argued on appeal that the decision was an “outlier” and that other courts that had considered similar COVID 19-related cases had rejected them.
The Court of Appeal, however, said Arturo Ek’s death was not derivative of his wife becoming sick, but was instead caused directly by the COVID-19 virus, for which his wife served as a “conduit.” It cited a decision by a federal appeals court allowing a similar case over a hepatitis infection.
This abuse of the courts by unscrupulous activists will continue until the courts of appeal have large conservative majorites, blocking many of the frivolous cases.