Earll v. McCoy
| Decision Date | 11 February 1953 |
| Citation | 253 P.2d 86,116 Cal.App.2d 44 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EARLL et al. v. McCOY et al. Civ. 4492. |
McCabe & Schumacher, Fullerton, for appellants.
Head, Jacobs & Corfman, Santa Ana, for respondents.
This action was brought under the provisions of Section 2802 of the Labor Code to recover the value of personal property destroyed by fire.
Plaintiffs, a group of automobile mechanics, were employed by defendants in the operation of a general garage and Ford agency in Fullerton. Each of the plaintiffs received a weekly guaranteed salary, plus fifty per cent of money collected for his labor and each furnished his hand tools, which, for practical reasons and by custom and usage, were left in the garage overnight. There were no express instructions from the employer to leave the hand tools (which in some cases weighed several hundred pounds) at the place of business, but there was testimony to the effect that the job foreman discouraged the plaintiffs from taking their tools home. Each mechanic used his own tools, replaced them when they were worn out or lost, and, when not in use, they were left in the garage. On the night of June 23, 1950, a fire destroyed defendants' place of business, together with the hand tools and equipment belonging to the plaintiffs.
It is not contended that the defendants were negligent in connection with the fire or that plaintiffs' claims as to the amount of losses are excessive.
Plaintiffs joined in this action claiming indemnity for their losses under the provisions of Section 2802 of the Labor Code. That section provides as follows:
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the losses suffered by them were in direct consequence (1) Of the discharge of their duties as employees; and (2) In obedience to the directions of their employers in view of the provisions of Section 2857 of the Labor Code providing that an employee shall perform his service in conformity to the usage of the place of performance, unless otherwise directed by his employer, or unless it is impracticable or manifestly injurious to his employer to do so. In this connection it is argued that when one performs services in conformity to the usage of the place of employment, he is obeying a direction of the employer.
The trial court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefits of said Section 2802 and rendered judgment in favor of defendants. We conclude that the losses to the plaintiffs were not incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Work Uniform Cases
...P. 514 (O'Brien). They also cite Jacobus v. Krambo Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1096, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 425 (Jacobus); Earll v. McCoy (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 44, 253 P.2d 86 (Earll), and Machinists Automotive Trades Dist. Lodge v. Utility Trailers Sales Co. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 80, 190 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Douglas v. Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
...which interprets section 2802 in the factual context here presented. Only two cases discuss the section in any detail. Earll v. McCoy, 116 Cal.App.2d 44, 253 P.2d 86 is not helpful. However, Davidson v. Welch, 270 Cal.App.2d 220 at 227, 75 Cal.Rptr. 676, 681, footnote 3 Section 2802 was ena......
-
Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.
...Trailer Sales Co., supra, at p. 86, 190 Cal.Rptr. 98.) That case disagreed with an earlier Court of Appeal decision (Earll v. McCoy (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 44, 253 P.2d 86) that had reached the opposite conclusion in a similar situation, where the employee's tools were destroyed by a fire on ......
-
Douglas v. Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
...which interprets section 2802 in the factual context here presented. Only two cases discuss the section in any detail. Earll v. McCoy, 116 Cal.App.2d 44, 253 P.2d 86 is not helpful. However, Davidson v. Welch, 270 Cal.App.2d 220 at 227, 75 Cal.Rptr. 676, 681, footnote 3 '3 No opinion is exp......