Conway v. Globin

Decision Date17 July 1951
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCONWAY v. GLOBIN. Civ. 7877.

Maul, Hughes & Maul, Placerville, for appellant.

Russell A. Harris, Sacramento, for respondent.

PEEK, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant by reason of plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint following the sustaining of defendant's demurrer thereto.

The complaint alleges that defendant is the owner of Globin's Resort at Lake Tahoe; that plaintiff was employed by defendant as manager thereof; that while plaintiff was engaged in the performance of his duties, defendant, without provocation, wilfully attacked him, tearing his clothes and striking him in the face and body; that as a result two of his lower front teeth were broken, necessitating the expenditure of money for dental services, and that it will cost an additional sum to replace the broken teeth. The prayer is for both compensatory and punative damages. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action in that the superior court had no jurisdiction of the cause of action, the matter being exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Accident Commission. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, and upon plaintiff's failure so to do, judgment was entered in favor of defendant.

The single issue presented is whether the allegations of the complaint established the conditions of compensation as provided in the Workmen's Compensation Law. If they do, it is admittedly apparent on the face of the complaint that appellant has no cause of action against respondent.

It is appellant's contention, however, that the injuries herein alleged resulted from a wilful assault and battery committed by the defendant employer, and hence are not injuries 'arising out of and in the course of' plaintiff's employment as provided in Section 3600 of the Labor Code.

Respondent's contention in support of the court's order is that since plaintiff alleges that his injuries were incurred while he was engaged in the performance of his duties as an employee of defendant, the situation so pleaded comes within the provisions of Section 3600 of the Labor Code, and since plaintiff has pleaded no peculiar factual circumstances taking the cause out of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Accident Commission, that therefore the Commission, under the provisions of Section 3601 of the Labor Code, has exclusive jurisdiction of the cause.

The conditions essential to compensation are set forth in Section 3600 of the Labor Code, which reads as follows:

'Liability for the compensation provided by this division, in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person except as provided in section 3706, shall, without regard to negligence, exist against an employer for any injury sustained by his employees arising out of and in the course of the employment and for the death of any employee if the injury proximately causes death, in those cases where the following conditions of compensation occur:

'(a) Where, at the time of the injury, both the employer and the employee are subject to the compensation provisions of this division.

'(b) Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment and is acting within the course of his employment.

'(c) Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence.

'(d) Where the injury is not caused by the intoxication of the injured employee.

'(e) Where the injury is not intentionally self-inflicted.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 3601 of the Labor Code reads as follows: 'Where the conditions of compensation exist, the right to recover such compensation, pursuant to the provisions of this division is, except as provided in section 3706, the exclusive remedy against the employer for the injury or death.'

The situation so presented herein has been dealt with specifically in the Compensation Laws of various states by provisions that in the event of death or injury resulting from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Fermino v. Fedco, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1994
    ...intentional assaultive acts by an employer were outside the scope of the compensation bargain. The conclusion of Conway v. Globin (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 495, 233 P.2d 612, was typical: intentional assault on an employee was not to be considered "a risk or condition incident to the employment......
  • Devlin v. Ennis
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1956
    ...workmen's compensation act to shield himself--in this case, his estate--from his civil liability in an action at law. Conway v. Globin, 105 Cal.App.2d 495, 233 P.2d 612. Appellants in their reply brief contend that the Conway case is completely discredited, if not expressly overruled, by St......
  • Magliulo v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1975
    ...by his intentional act of violence. (See Larson, Op. cit., p. 13--2.) In this state the issue was first presented in Conway v. Globin (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 495, 233 P.2d 612. There the employee in a civil action alleged that while engaged in the performance of his duties as manager of a res......
  • Iverson v. Atlas Pacific Engineering
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1983
    ...to one who is the "initial physical aggressor" in an altercation which results in injuries.5 Quoting from Conway v. Globin (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 495, 498, 233 P.2d 612, where a demurrer to a civil action for willful assault and battery based upon the exclusive remedy provisions was found im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT