legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Demetry v. Leeds
Plaintiff Tammy Demetry, a clerk for the County of Orange, was taking a walk during her break when she was struck by a car driven by another County employee, Rebecca Leeds, as Leeds was exiting a driveway. Demetry filed a workers’ compensation action, which was adjudicated. Demetry and her husband subsequently filed the instant lawsuit against Leeds, alleging negligence and loss of consortium.
Leeds filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c,[1] arguing that Demetry’s cause of action for negligence was barred by the doctrine of workers’ compensation exclusivity because both parties had been acting in the course and scope of their employment when the accident occurred. The trial court denied Demetry’s request for a continuance and granted Leeds’s motion. The court concluded the “required vehicle exception” to the going and coming rule applied, and therefore the claims by Demetry and her husband were barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine.
On appeal, Demetry argues that Leeds failed to meet her burden of production in a manner warranting summary judgment. We disagree, finding that Leeds met her burden with relevant, admissible and undisputed evidence, while Demetry offered none on her own behalf. We therefore affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale