Nicewarner

Nicewarner v. Kaiser Steel Corp.

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 2d 31·143 Cal. App. 3d 31·191 Cal. Rptr. 522·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1731
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 1983Civ. 27599California4,126 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDaniel, J.

This appeal presents for review the propriety of the trial court’s granting of defendant Kaiser Steel Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff James Nicewarner, an employee of defendant, was injured on the job and received workers’ compensation benefits. Nevertheless, he proceeded to file a regular civil action against his employer, seeking money damages under the so-called dual capacity exception to the exclusive remedy principle applicable to workers’ casualty claims against their employers.

We share the trial court’s view that there were no disputed issues of material fact presented at the time the motion was considered, and that such facts, as a matter of law, did not provide the occasion to invoke the dual capacity exception noted. We shall therefore affirm the judgment in favor of defendant.

Proceedings in the Trial Court

After plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim against his employer had been adjusted by plaintiff’s receipt of benefits in excess of $65,000, he filed a plenary civil action against his employer seeking to recover additional damages. In plaintiff’s original complaint he alleged that on a particular day Kaiser Steel was constructing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.