Facts

On Dec. 14, 2010, plaintiff Monnie Wright was both an employee and tenant of the State of California. He was employed as a Correctional Officer at San Quentin State Prison, and he lived on the property, renting a home on the San Quentin grounds with the state as his landlord. At 5:30 a.m., as he was descending stairs outside his residence on his walk from his home to his job post within the maximum security prison, the second to last step collapsed under his foot.

Wright initially filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. He received benefits in the form of medical expenses and disability payments. In July 2012, he went on early disability retirement. Thereafter, Wright filed a civil suit against the state, claiming he was injured on his rental property and not his place of employment. The state moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers' compensation was Wright's exclusive remedy. The state claimed that Wright was commuting at the time of his fall, and since he had already reached his employer's premises the employment relationship had begun and Wright was covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment and applied the premises line test as an exception to the going and coming rule.

Plaintiff appealed arguing that the court was incorrect in applying the premises line rule and instead claimed that the bunkhouse rule was the appropriate test for injuries occurring in employer-owned housing. After oral arguments, the Court of Appeal reversed the prior decision in a published opinion, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wright was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time he was injured. The Court of Appeal issued a published decision that provided clear guidance on what legal tests apply when injuries occur in employer-owned housing.

After getting the case back from the Court of Appeal, Wright filed this lawsuit claiming he was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time he was injured.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Wright contended the 80-year-old concrete stairway was unsafe. Plaintiff claimed the state was liable for a dangerous condition of public property, which caused his fall. Wright also contended that his injury did not occur in the course and scope of his employment with the state, so his injury was not barred by the affirmative defense of workers' compensation exclusive remedy. Wright was in his uniform at the time, wearing a utility belt, and was under a duty to assist if an inmate-related emergency arose on the prison grounds while he was on the property.
Plaintiff had to establish either that his injuries did not arise out of his employment or that the injuries did not occur in the course of his employment. Wright denied defense's claim of comparative fault.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The state denied that the property was in a dangerous condition. The state contended that Monnie Wright was negligent in causing his fall and failing to tell the state the stairway was dangerous before the fall. The state contended that it had no notice of the dangerous condition and that it had a reasonable inspection system and never identified the hazard. The state also contended that it was not negligent because its maintenance and inspection practices were reasonable in light of its budgetary constraints.

The state argued that Wright was in the course and scope of his employment because he was performing a task related to his state employment. The state disputed the extent of plaintiff's injuries and psychological distress, and that he was able to work in other capacities with the state.

The state asserted various affirmative defenses including financial feasibility (Gov. Code section 835.2), lack of notice of the dangerous condition (Gov. Code section 835.2), reasonable inspection system (Gov. Code section 835.2), and condition created by reasonable act or omission (Gov. Code section 835.4).

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $1,250,000. Defendant offered $0.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered L5-S1 nerve root inflammation; medial meniscus tear, lateral meniscus tear, ACL tear; avulsion fracture in the right elbow and cubital tunnel syndrome. Wright contended that injuries to his back, elbow, and knee, caused him to retire from his career as a Correctional Officer and required future medical treatment. Wright also contended that his injuries and inability to work caused him psychological distress.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded $1,318,641. The jury found the State of California 95 percent at fault and plaintiff 5 percent comparative fault.

Other Information

Defendant filed a motion to reduce the verdict pursuant to Government Code section 985, which was granted following a stipulation. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs and defendant filed a motion to tax costs, after which costs of $50,625 were ordered recoverable by the court. Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney fees under his residential lease agreement. The motion was denied and is currently on appeal as a separately appealable order. The underlying judgment is not on appeal and has been paid.

Deliberation

three days

Length

three weeks