Donald Dacumos, aged 38, tragically lost his life on November 9, 2020, in San Mateo, California. The incident occurred at the Pierce Street assisted living facility where Dacumos was employed. According to police reports, the event was a murder-suicide, with Dacumos being fatally shot by his co-worker, Edward Go, who subsequently took his own life.
The motive behind this tragic event was reportedly revenge, as Go believed Dacumos was involved in an affair with his wife, who also worked for the same employer but at a different facility.
The investigation revealed that the murder was premeditated. Go had planned the attack meticulously, ensuring he confronted Dacumos at their workplace. On the day of the incident, Go brought a firearm to the facility and shot Dacumos multiple times before turning the gun on himself. The police were called to the scene immediately, but both men were pronounced dead upon arrival.
In the aftermath of the incident, there were no arrests made as the primary suspect, Edward Go, had already died. However, the case did lead to significant legal proceedings. The family of Donald Dacumos filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the assisted living facility, alleging negligence in failing to prevent the tragedy. They argued that the facility should have been aware of the escalating tensions between the two employees and taken steps to mitigate the risk.
Additionally, the case was reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The board had to determine whether Dacumos's death was sufficiently connected to his employment to warrant compensation. Despite the personal nature of the motive, the WCAB concluded that the murder was indeed work-related, as the parties involved were all acquainted through their employment, and the incident occurred during work hours.
This tragic event not only highlighted the personal vendettas that can arise in the workplace but also underscored the importance of workplace safety and the responsibilities of employers to protect their employees from foreseeable harm. The legal ramifications of the case continue to serve as a precedent in discussions about employer liability and workplace violence.
