Opinion ID: 1179323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: An employer's action under Labor Code section 3852 is essentially a tort action; accordingly, application of the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision 3 is appropriate.

Text: The county claims that Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 1, fixes the period of time within which it could sue Sanfax, and that since that statute's three-year limit had not yet run, its action was timely. Sanfax, however, argues that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision 3, the county had only one year from the date of the injury to Edrozo and Lisi within which to sue, and therefore that the statute of limitations does in fact bar the county's action. [4] On their face, both statutes appear to apply. The county's action, brought under Labor Code section 3852, is [a]n action upon a liability created by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 1.) It appears to be equally true, however, that, in bringing suit, the county seeks to recover for injury ... caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. 3.) Although both statutes apparently are pertinent, this court and the Courts of Appeal have consistently held that the one-year statute in fact governs. In this section, we explain why this conclusion is correct. [5]