ADJ9170309 · November 3, 2025

The WCJ and Appeals Board found no evidence that the employer or its managing representative acted with serious and willful misconduct causing the injury, and no violation of safety orders was a proximate cause of the accident.

From the decision · page 1applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 25, 2025 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant's injuries were not caused by the serious and willful misconduct of the employer and that applicant's injuries were not the result of the employer's violation of any statute or safety order.

The proximate cause of the accident was the groundsman pulling a branch entangled with the ladder, causing it to tip over.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact showed that the accident was not caused by any violation of safety orders or serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

No evidence was presented that the employer's managing representative was aware of any risk or violation of safety orders prior to the accident.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of knowledge by the managing representative negated serious and willful misconduct liability.

Mercer-Fraser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 102

Serious and willful misconduct requires deliberate, intentional, or wanton conduct by an executive or managing officer with knowledge that danger is likely to result.

The court applied this standard to find no serious and willful misconduct by the employer or its managing representative.

From the decision · page 3II. "It must be recognized at the outset that the statute in question does not make the employer an insurer of safety and that it does not authorize the additional award upon a showing of mere negligence, or even of gross negligence. Under the provisions of section 4553 the awards of increased benefits can be sustained only if the employes [sic] were `injured by reason of the serious and wilful misconduct' (italics added) of the employer, and where, as here, the employer is a corporation, such misconduct must be `on the part of an executive, managing officer, or general superintendent' of the employer corporation." (Mercer-Fraser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com., (1953) 40 Cal.2d 102, 108 [18 Cal. Comp. Cases 3].) Serious and willful conduct is defined as conduct that "necessarily involves deliberate, intentional, or wanton conduct in doing or omitting to perform acts, with knowledge or appreciation of the fact, on the part of the culpable person, that danger is likely to result therefrom."

Security camera footage showed that the ladder did not slip and that the accident was caused by the groundsman pulling a branch entangled with the ladder, causing it to tip over.

From the decision · page 61 Although this conclusion was supported by the testimony of Defense Expert Mack Quan, the court reached this conclusion independently by virtue of viewing of security camera footage played in court. Observation of the video made it obvious that the ladder did not slip, and that applicant did not lose his balance, rather, Nick Lambert pulled on a branch that was caught up on the right foot of the ladder, causing the ladder to twist and tip over.

No evidence was presented that the employer's managing representative was aware of any risk or violation of safety orders prior to the accident.