Opinion ID: 1455584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: applicability of the tort claims act of 1963

Text: Section 814.2 provides: Nothing in this part shall be construed to impliedly repeal any provision of Division 4 (commencing with Section 3201) or Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 6100) of the Labor Code. The legislative committee comment provides: This section makes clear that the statute relating to the liability of public entities and public employees has no effect on rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Labor Code section 3800, stating local governments shall require workers' compensation provision before granting a building permit, is included in division 4 of the Labor Code. The language of section 814.2 shows that the Tort Claims Act of 1963 was not intended to have any applicability to the rights granted or duties imposed by the Workers' Compensation Act, and the legislative committee comment shows that rights under that act must take precedence to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act. The instant action is predicated on the county's asserted breach of a duty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Act and the enforcement by the worker of his correlative right. It is apparent that the purpose of section 814.2 is that the provisions of the Tort Claims Act shall not interfere with recovery of benefits under the workers' act. Plaintiff's action, seeking recovery of compensation benefits lost due to the county's asserted failure to enforce Labor Code section 3800, comes within that purpose. Accordingly, the Tort Claims Act is not applicable. General provisions of law thus govern. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., supra, 55 Cal.2d 211, repudiated sovereign immunity for ministerial acts, and the instant action may be maintained for asserted breach of a statutory duty without justification or excuse, plaintiff being a member of the class to be protected. ( Alarid v. Vanier, supra, 50 Cal.2d 617, 621-624; Lehmann v. Los Angeles City Bd. of Educ., supra, 154 Cal. App.2d 256, 259-261.) I agree that the judgment should be reversed. On March 3, 1977, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.