Lee v. West Kern Water Dist.
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, employed by the district, filed suit against the district and four coemployees for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the coemployees staged a mock robbery with plaintiff as the victim. Plaintiff, who had not been informed of the planned mock robbery, handed over the money and subsequently was treated for psychiatric injury. The jury awarded her $360,000. The trial court denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted their motion for a new trial. Here, the ruling was based on a determination of the correctness of the jury instructions, and this in turn was based on a determination of the legal effect of statements in the complaint. The court concluded that the de novo standard of review applies to both these determinations. The court explained that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule is the rule, embodied in Labor Code sections 3600, 3601 and 3602, that with certain exceptions, an injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his or her employment is compensable by way of a workers’ compensation insurance award only, not by a tort judgment. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting the new trial motion because the trial court was mistaken in its view that the complaint conceded the case was within the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the only issue was whether one of the exceptions in Labor Code sections 3601 and 3602 applied as well. The court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to apply judicial estoppel; the prior workers’ compensation award does not by itself show the conditions of compensation were met; and the double recovery issue was not properly before this court. The court addressed the remaining issues and reversed the order granting a new trial, affirmed the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.