California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tate v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County, 213 Cal.App.2d 238, 28 Cal.Rptr. 548 (Cal. App. 1963):
Doubtless, employers and carriers sometimes see advantages to themselves in permitting the action to go to trial in the employee's name alone. Otherwise they would always exercise their right to intervene. In every case the absence of the employer as a party of record is a result of his own preference. Those who enjoy these rights of subrogation are, in most cases, sophisticated litigants: qualified insurance companies and permissibly self-insured employers. Now that Witt v. Jackson is in the books, anyone who pays compensation is likely to be aware of the contributory negligence problem and will weigh accordingly the privilege of intervening. In view of the statutory policy of giving the employer the option of remaining off the record, and the opportunity given to the employer to participate as he chooses, we cannot say that the employer is a person whose 'interest would be inequitably affected or jeopardized' so as to make his joinder indispensable under Code of Civil Procedure, section 389.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.