From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. FMC Corp.

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Four
May 19, 1978
81 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)

Summary

In Wright v. FMC Corp., supra, 81 Cal.App.3d 777, the employee alleged the employer concealed dangers inherent in materials used in his work.

Summary of this case from Spratley v. Winchell Donut House, Inc.

Opinion

Docket No. 42387.

May 19, 1978.

Appeal from Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 172524, William R. Channell, Judge.

COUNSEL

Bryce C. Anderson and George W. Kilbourne for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer Jensen and Michael G. Lowe for Defendant and Respondent.


OPINION


Frank Wright appeals from a judgment by which the court dismissed, upon demurrer, his first amended complaint against FMC Corporation.

(1) Appellant had attempted to plead causes of action against respondent for damage suffered by appellant while mixing chemicals in the preparation of pesticides. Respondent brought before the court through judicial notice the fact that appellant had sought workers' compensation recovery from respondent as his employer for the same injury.

Appellant points out that he alleged in his first amended complaint that respondent knew that appellant's job involved contact with noxious chemicals but concealed and misrepresented the hazard to induce appellant to accept employment. He contends that this allegation should be held to avoid the provisions of Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601, which generally make workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries "[w]here the conditions of compensation exist." (Lab. Code, § 3601.) The contention must be rejected. "The fact that appellant founds his [case] upon the deceit allegedly practiced by [the employer] is immaterial." ( Buttner v. American Bell Tel. Co. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 581, 584 [ 107 P.2d 439].) Here there was no allegation of a dual role on the part of the employer such as could subject the employer to additional liability. The present case is thus to be distinguished from Ramey v. General Petroleum Corp. (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 386 [ 343 P.2d 787], and other dual-role cases cited by appellant.

(2) Contrary to another contention of appellant, the exclusive-remedy provisions of the workers' compensation statute do not violate equal protection. ( Benjamin v. Ricks (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 593 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 758].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Caldecott, P.J., and Paik, J., concurred.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

A petition for a rehearing was denied June 13, 1978, and appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 27, 1978.


Summaries of

Wright v. FMC Corp.

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Four
May 19, 1978
81 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)

In Wright v. FMC Corp., supra, 81 Cal.App.3d 777, the employee alleged the employer concealed dangers inherent in materials used in his work.

Summary of this case from Spratley v. Winchell Donut House, Inc.

In Wright v. FMC Corp., supra, 81 Cal.App.3d 777, the superior court sustained without leave to amend an employer's demurrer to an employee's pleading alleging the employer knew the job involved contact with noxious chemicals but concealed and misrepresented the hazard to induce him to accept employment.

Summary of this case from Spratley v. Winchell Donut House, Inc.

In Wright v. F.M.C. Corporation, 81 Cal.App.3d 777, 146 Cal.Rptr. 740 (1978) an employee filed suit against an employer seeking recovery for injuries received while mixing chemicals.

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc.
Case details for

Wright v. FMC Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK WRIGHT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FMC CORPORATION, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Four

Date published: May 19, 1978

Citations

81 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
146 Cal. Rptr. 740

Citing Cases

Spratley v. Winchell Donut House, Inc.

Such allegation does not avoid the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation act. ( Wright v. FMC…

Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court

First we consider cases in which the intentional acts of the employer have been held not to justify an…