Paul Friend, a tow truck driver, was injured at work when he sat on a metal folding chair and the chair collapsed. Friend alleged his injury was caused by the negligence of William Kang and GBWY Investment Group, Inc. dba Stateline Service, Inc. Friend conceded in his complaint that he is an employee of GBWY. Kang owns GBWY, a corporation with the “dba” of Stateline Service, Inc. Friend claims the chair collapsed because it had been negligently repaired, at Kang’s request. In short, Friend alleged his workplace injury was caused by his employer’s negligence.
Friend alleged Kang had acquired the chair “in his personal name for use by [Friend] and other co-workers during the course and scope of their employment.” Sometime before Friend sat in the chair, Kang had the chair repaired. Kang should have known the chair was not properly repaired and was not safe for use in the workplace.
Defendants disputed Friend’s allegation that Kang personally owned the chair. They submitted evidence, in the form of Kang’s deposition testimony and sworn declaration, that the chair was GBWY’s property, acquired when Kang purchased Stateline Service, Inc. from its prior owner along with its equipment and furnishings.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on Friend’s negligence claim, arguing workers’ compensation was Friend’s exclusive remedy for his injury.
Friend opposed defendants’ motion, arguing that Stateline Service, Inc., not GBWY, was his employer, and that Kang “personally owned” the chair because he acquired it from the previous owner in his own name, as an individual.
The trial court granted summary judgment, and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed in the unpublished case of Friend v Kang.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Friend’s negligence claim. The Court of Appeal concluded on the basis of Friend’s allegations and the undisputed evidence that Friend’s claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Lab. Code, § 3600 et seq.) and therefore the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
The Workers’ Compensation Act applies to any workplace injury caused by an employer’s negligence, and so by Friend’s own allegations, the Act applies to his injury. Friend makes much over the issue of who owns the folding chair that injured him. He claims Kang took “personal delivery” of the chair “in his own name” and therefore the chair belongs to Kang, not GBWY.
Because Kang is Friend’s employer, it does not matter whether he personally owns the chair or the chair is a GBWY asset. The material facts (as alleged) are Kang provided the chair at his workplace and the chair allegedly injured one of his employees. An employer’s “sole liability” for a workplace injury “is for benefits payable, regardless of fault, under the workers’ compensation law. (DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 598)