An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 8 – Leaves And Absences

More recently, the California courts have found that liability depends on the nature of the risk. Three types of risk can be identified: industrial, neutral, and personal. Where the risk is either industrial or neutral, the injury is compensable. Where the risk is personal, i.e., related solely to the employee’s person, the injury is not compensable. Even the most neutral of risks can be included: for example, an employee at work who is accidentally struck by a stray bullet that enters the work place from next door would be covered. Injuries stemming from acts of God, travel on streets and highways, risks brought to the work place by employees (matches, firearms, etc.), and assaults arising from the nature of the employment or out of a work related controversy are frequently held to be compensable. 1. U NEXPLAINED A CCIDENTS Coverage questions arise in cases of unexplained deaths, unexplained falls, and idiopathic falls. Application of a rule called the positional risk doctrine can result in recovery, even if the cause of the fall or death is unknown, because of the employment relation that existed at the time. Given the objectives and policies of workers’ compensation legislation, the courts often resolve unexplained injury and death cases in favor of the employee. 2. P RE -E XISTING C ONDITIONS It is not uncommon for employees to bring pre-existing medical problems to the work place. The difficulty posed in this area stems from the fact that pre-existing medical problems constitute personal risks which would fall outside of coverage. However, if an employee is able to demonstrate that the employment exacerbated or aggravated a pre-existing medical problem, then recovery may be permitted. The employee must establish through expert medical evidence the fact of the aggravation and a causal connection between the employment and the claimed injury. 3. H ORSEPLAY Frequently, injuries occur in the work place as a result of horseplay. There is little difficulty in providing coverage for a non-participant who is injured; such an injury is viewed as being within the scope of employment. California has long followed the general rule that participants have no claim for injuries so received. However, one court has made an exception where the horseplay is closely connected with the employment and is actually or apparently condoned by the school. LCW Practice Advisor

This case emphasizes the importance that employee discipline may play in avoiding liability for injuries that result from horseplay. If there is a prior record of discipline, the school may point to that as evidence that it does not condone horseplay.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 320