Behrens

Behrens v. Fayette Manufacturing Co.

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 471·4 Cal. App. 4th 1567·7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 264·92 Daily Journal DAR 4835·57 Cal. Comp. Cases 255
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1992C009749California2,331 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marler, J.

Plaintiff Brenda Behrens appeals from judgments entered after the trial court granted the motions for summary judgment of defendants Fayette Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Fayette), Reliance Electric Company, and Reliance Electric Industrial Company (collectively Reliance) in a product liability case. She contends her suit against her employer, Fayette, was not barred by the rule which makes workers’ compensation her exclusive remedy because she came within the exception of Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(3). She also contends Reliance is liable because of its participation in the design of the product that injured her. In the published portion of this opinion, we find plaintiff does not come within the exception of Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(3). In the unpublished portion, we find plaintiff raised no triable issue of material fact relating to Reliance’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm both judgments.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff worked for Fayette as a turbine technician. As part of her job she inspected, maintained, and performed repairs on wind turbines, windmills used to generate electricity. She was injured on the job when…

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.