Matthew Vann is a firefighter with the San Francisco Fire Department. On November 2, 2020, Vann responded to an emergency. A bus driver with the San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Authority drove a bus through the location of the active emergency. The bus went over a firehose, which became entangled with the bus’s wheels and stretched until it broke off the fire engine to which it was attached.
When the firehose broke away, it hit Vann’s legs, sweeping him off his feet and causing him to slam backwards onto the ground. His helmet flew off, and the back of his head struck the street surface. As a result, Vann sustained catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, a fractured left clavicle, an internal hemorrhage in his right eye, and damage to his throat and vocal cords.
Vann submitted a claim against the City, alleging in part that the City “has been on notice of the illegal conduct of its Muni Bus driver.” When the City rejected the claim, Vann sued the City and the driver, alleging a variety of negligence claims. The City opposed the lawsuit, contending that under California’s Workers’ Compensation Act, the workers’ compensation system provided the exclusive remedy for Vann’s claims against the City and against the driver co-employee. The “exclusive remedy” provisions in workers’ compensation laws are generally known as “workers’ compensation bars.”
The California Court of Appeals agreed with the City. The Court cited a provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act that “an employer’s liability to pay compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act is in lieu of any other liability whatsoever.” A separate provision of the Act “prohibits actions against co-employees for injuries they cause when acting within the scope of their employment.”
Vann argued that the City, the Transit Authority, and the Fire Department were three separate legal entities. The Court disagreed, noting that Vann’s “position presupposes that for purposes of a lawsuit for damages, a municipal department can and does possess a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality by which it was created. However, the Transit Authority and the Fire Department remain part of a single governmental entity – the City. If the Transit Authority and the Fire Department have no legal existence separate from the City, then they are merely two subsidiary components of the same entity – the City. The conclusion that follows is that the City employs both Vann and the bus driver.
“Factors that may be considered in determining if an entity is independent include whether there is an express statutory declaration that the entity is a body corporate and politic; whether the entity has a governing body separate from that of the city, county, or district; or whether it has statutory power to own property, levy taxes, or incur indebtedness in its own name. Contrary to Vann’s assertions, we find no express statutory declaration that the Transit Authority is a body corporate and politic. To the contrary, the Transit Authority is described throughout the City Charter and other municipal codes as an agency that is a part of the City. As to its governance, the directors of the Transit Authority must be appointed by the Mayor (the chief executive officer and the official representative of the City) and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors (the legislative branch of the City) after a public hearing.
“In addition, the fact that the Transit Authority’s funding is segregated from other City funds does not mean it is fiscally separate from the City, as Vann asserts. This is nothing more than a provision that the money so paid shall constitute a special fund for a special purpose. The existence of such a fund does not necessarily imply the existence of a corporate entity separate and distinct from the county as beneficiary.”
Vann v. City and County of San Francisco, 2023 WL 8591612 (Cal. App.).