In this article 7 sections
Robotic arms weld on factory lines, automated carts move pallets through warehouses, and packaging machines run with little more than a worker clearing a jam now and then. When that equipment moves when it should not, or a guard is missing, the injuries are often serious: crushed hands, amputations, fractures, and head injuries.
If you were hurt by a robot or automated machine at work, you probably have two questions. Can I sue my employer? And if not, is workers’ comp all I get? The short answers are “usually not” and “not always.” Workers’ comp generally covers you no matter who was at fault, but when a defective machine or another company outside your employer played a part, you may also have a separate claim against them.
Here is how those pieces fit together, and what to do next.
Workers’ Comp Is Usually Your Only Claim Against Your Employer
California Labor Code section 3600 makes an employer liable for workers’ compensation benefits for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment, “without regard to negligence.” You do not have to prove your employer did anything wrong to receive benefits such as medical treatment and temporary disability payments.
The trade-off is in Labor Code section 3602. When the conditions of compensation are met, workers’ comp is, with limited exceptions, “the sole and exclusive remedy” against the employer. That is why most injured workers cannot file an ordinary injury lawsuit against their own employer, even when the employer was careless.
The exceptions are narrow. Section 3602(b) allows a civil lawsuit against the employer in situations such as:
- a willful physical assault by the employer,
- the employer’s fraudulent concealment of an injury and its connection to the job, which made the injury worse (and then only for the aggravation), and
- an injury from a defective product the employer made and sold to an outside party, which a third person then provided for the employee’s use.
Section 3706 adds another: if the employer failed to carry workers’ compensation coverage at all, the injured worker may sue the employer for damages as if the comp system did not apply.
The Power Press Exception
One exception was written with machinery in mind. Labor Code section 4558 allows an injured worker (or the worker’s dependents, if the worker died) to sue the employer when the injury was caused by the employer’s “knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press,” and that removal or failure was “specifically authorized by the employer under conditions known by the employer to create a probability of serious injury or death.”
This exception is tightly drawn. The statute defines a “power press” as “any material-forming machine that utilizes a die which is designed for use in the manufacture of other products.” Liability also requires proof that the manufacturer designed, required, or provided for the guard and conveyed that to the employer. A press built into an automated line may raise a section 4558 question, but most robots and automated machines are not power presses, so this exception will not fit most cases.
Inside the comp system, under Labor Code section 4553, when an employee is injured because of the “serious and willful misconduct” of the employer or certain managers or officers, the compensation otherwise recoverable is increased by one-half. That is a comp remedy, not a lawsuit, but it can matter when an employer ignored a serious machine hazard.
Third-Party Claims Against the Machine’s Maker and Others
Exclusivity protects your employer, not generally anyone else. Labor Code section 3852 says your claim for workers’ compensation “does not affect” your right to recover damages from “any person other than the employer.”
In a robot or automated-machine injury, possible third parties can include:
- the company that designed or manufactured the robot or machine,
- the maker of a component, such as a safety sensor, light curtain, interlock, or controller,
- the systems integrator that designed and installed the robot cell or automated line, and
- an outside maintenance or repair company.
How California product liability works
California has recognized strict products liability since Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, a case involving a combination power tool. The California Supreme Court held that “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.”
In Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, the Court explained that a product can be defective in design either (1) if it “failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner,” or (2) if “the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” Under the second test, once the injured person shows the design caused the injury, the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove the design’s benefits outweigh its risks.
In a robot case, design questions often center on safeguarding: adequate guarding, working interlocks and presence sensors, protection against unexpected restarts, and adequate warnings and instructions. Manufacturing defects and failure to warn are separate theories that may also apply.
”The AI did it” is not a defense
California Civil Code section 1714.46, added by AB 316 and effective January 1, 2026, provides that in an action against a defendant who “developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence” alleged to have caused harm, “it shall not be a defense, and the defendant may not assert, that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff.” The statute still lets defendants raise other defenses, including evidence about causation, foreseeability, and the comparative fault of others. It does not make anyone automatically liable, but it takes one excuse off the table. We wrote more about this in AI liability in personal injury cases.
How Cal/OSHA Safety Rules Come Into Play
Federal OSHA states that “There are currently no specific OSHA standards for the robotics industry.” In California, automated equipment is subject to Cal/OSHA’s general machinery rules in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Two are especially relevant:
- Lockout/tagout (8 CCR 3314). This rule covers cleaning, servicing, repairing, setting up, and adjusting machines where “unexpected energization or start up” could injure workers, and it expressly includes unjamming. Machinery generally must be stopped and de-energized, and moving parts blocked or locked out when necessary, with limited exceptions for minor routine adjustments.
- Machine guarding (8 CCR 4002 and 4184). Hazardous moving parts and pinch points must be guarded, and machines with cutting, pressing, squeezing, or similar action must be guarded at the point of operation where an employee comes within the danger zone.
A Cal/OSHA violation does not, by itself, let you sue your employer outside the comp system. But inspection files, citations, and the employer’s lockout procedures can be important evidence of how the injury happened, both for a serious and willful misconduct claim and for showing whether a machine’s design or safeguards were part of the problem.
What Happens to Workers’ Comp if You Recover From a Third Party
Workers’ comp and a third-party case can run at the same time, but they are connected. Your employer, or its insurer, generally has a right to be paid back out of a third-party recovery for the benefits it has paid. Under Labor Code section 3856, a court first pays reasonable litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, and the employer can then claim a lien for its compensation expenditures. Sections 3858 and 3861 generally allow the employer a credit against future comp benefits for the net amount you recover. Amendments effective January 1, 2026 changed these rules for certain peace officers and firefighters employed by cities, counties, and fire protection districts. Either way, the two claims need to be coordinated, because settling one without thinking about the other can cause problems later.
What to Do After a Robot or Machine Injury
Consider a hypothetical: a worker reaches into a palletizing cell to clear a jam, and the arm restarts. These steps generally help protect both the comp claim and any third-party claim:
- Get medical care and report the injury. Tell your supervisor in writing right away. Labor Code section 5400 refers to written notice within 30 days, but there is no reason to wait.
- Write down the machine’s details. Make, model, serial number, integrator, and what you were doing when it moved.
- Identify witnesses and anyone who recently worked on the machine.
- Ask that the machine and its data be preserved. Robot controllers often keep fault and event logs, and evidence can disappear once a machine is repaired, modified, or reset. An attorney can send preservation letters to the employer, manufacturer, and integrator.
- Watch the deadlines. The general deadline for a California personal injury lawsuit is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, and different rules apply to the comp claim and to claims against public entities.
John Reardon spent nearly two decades treating injured patients as a chiropractor before becoming a lawyer, and that background shapes how we approach documentation. Crush and amputation injuries often involve surgery, therapy, and lasting limits on work, and those future needs have to be documented from the start.
Talk to a Lawyer Who Looks Beyond the Comp Claim
Sometimes workers’ comp is the end of the story. But when a robot or automated system was defectively designed, poorly safeguarded, or improperly installed by someone other than your employer, California law may allow a separate claim with damages workers’ comp does not provide, such as pain and suffering. Learn more on our robot and automation injury page.
If you or a family member was hurt by a robot or automated machine at work in California, contact Reardon Stodolka for a free consultation at 657.522.7122. We will look at both your comp claim and any third-party claim, and you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.