Gastelum v. City of Torrance

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

This appeal reaches us on an agreed statement of facts.

1

A jury awarded respondents damages in the amount of $290,000 for the wrongful death of Alvarado. The decedent, while working within the scope of his employment, was killed in an accident resulting from the concurrent negligence of appellants and his employer. Prior to trial, respondents were awarded death benefits and burial expenses payable by the workmen’s compensation carrier for the employer. The death benefit award was $20,500, payable at the rate of $70 per week “until fully paid.” At the time of judgment, $7,200 of the award was unpaid.

The trial court rendered judgment pursuant to the jury verdict reducing the award by $13,900, the amount that had been paid on the workmen’s compensation death benefit award to the date of judgment.

2

The trial court did not reduce the judgment by the remaining balance of the death benefit award. Appellants assert that it should have done so.

The issue raised on this appeal is a part of the fallout of

Witt

v.

Jackson, 51

Cal.2d 57 [17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360 P.2d 641], which establishes the principle that while an employer or its workmen’s compensation carrier is normally entitled to reimbursement from a third party tortfeasor for compensation benefits paid for injuries caused by the third party, the rule of reimbursement is inapplicable where the employer’s negligence contributes to the injury.

Witt

holds that in such cases the judgment against the third party tortfeasor is to be reduced by the amount of the compensation benefits paid. The question now before us concerns the applicability of that principle to workmen’s compensation benefits to be paid in the future.

A related question was before the Court of Appeal in

Slayton

v.

Wright,

[584]