Hubbard v. Boelt

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 1983 No. Civ. 26819Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An employer's right of action under Labor Code section 3852 to recover benefits paid to an injured employee is derivative of the employee's right to sue, and is therefore barred if the third-party defendant has a valid defense against the employee.

Issues

Whether an employer's claim for reimbursement under Labor Code section 3852 is independent of or derivative of the injured employee's right to sue a third party.
Whether the 'fireman's rule' bars an employer's recovery against a third party when the employee's own claim is barred by that rule.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an employer’s action under section 3852 is derivative of the employee’s right to sue; an employer who has paid benefits to an injured employee cannot collect reimbursement from a party who is immune to suit by the employee”

“Rights under subrogation are derivative rights, and succession to another’s rights, like water, cannot rise higher than its source.”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

The City of San Diego (City) intervened in a personal injury action brought by Johnny Hubbard against Robert Boelt. Hubbard was a policeman employed by the City and was injured in an accident caused by Boelt’s speeding and attempt to elude arrest. Hubbard’s claim was denied by the California Supreme Court under the “fireman’s rule,” the court holding Hubbard “knowingly and voluntarily confronted a hazard” and thus is not entitled to damages

(Hubbard

Boelt

(1980) 28 Cal.3d 480, 484 [169 Cal.Rptr. 706, 620 P.2d 156]). The Supreme Court did not consider the City’s complaint seeking reimbursement for compensation and other benefits it paid to Hubbard as a result of the accident because the judgment then on appeal addressed only Hubbard’s claim. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Boelt returned to the superior court and moved for summary judgment on the City’s claim. The motion was granted and the City appeals.

[884]

The City’s claim is based on Labor Code section 3852, which allows an employer who is obligated to pay benefits to an injured employee to sue the third party responsible for the injuries. The City argues this right of action is independent of the employee’s right to sue the third person and is not barred by a finding the third person is not liable to the employee. Boelt contends the City is merely subrogated to its employee’s rights and all defenses applicable in the employee’s suit also apply in an action brought by the employer.

Here, a public employer, funded by tax dollars, is obligated to compensate a police officer due to the reckless and illegal conduct of the defendant. The City’s obligation is imposed by no fault or choice of its own, as it results from the City’s duty to provide police protection and to compensate officers injured in the line of duty. Justice and equity call out for shifting the City’s burden to Boelt, the responsible party. But, an employer’s action under section 3852 is derivative of the employee’s right to sue; an employer who has paid benefits to an injured employee cannot collect reimbursement from a party who is immune to suit by the employee

Hubbard v. Boelt

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief