Kobe v. Industrial Acc. Commission
| Decision Date | 21 March 1950 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | KOBE et al. v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. (three cases). L. A. 21179-21181. |
Kearney, McCartney, Scott & Clopton, Los Angeles, for petitioners.
Robert W. Gilbert, Louis A. Nissen and William B. Irvin, Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.
T. Groezinger and Robert Ball, San Francisco, for respondents. Charles P. Scully, San Francisco, amicus curiae on behalf of respondents.
These are proceedings to review orders of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for injuries sustained by employees in an automobile accident which occurred while they were returning home from work.
Bjerke, Padilla and Ruble lived in Pomona and were employed by petitioner Kobe on a roofing job in San Bernardino. It was agreed that the men would work nine hours per day and would receive an additional hour's pay to compensate them for the time spent in traveling to and from work. Kobe was a party to a union contract which obligated him to pay travel time to employees who traveled back and forth each day to jobs over fifteen miles distance from the employer's place of business, and it was common practice in the business to pay one hour's extra pay in lieu of travel time. The employees involved in these proceedings traveled to and from the job in San Bernardino in an automobile owned and driven by Bjerke, the trip ordinarily taking about thirty- five minutes. On the day of the accident, they left their place of work at 4:30 p. m. and ten to fifteen minutes later, after they had proceeded about five miles on the shortest route to Pomona, the automobile in which they were riding was struck by a locomotive. Bjerke and Padilla were seriously injured and Ruble subsequently died from the effects of the injuries he received.
The question before us is whether the evidence supports the commission's findings and conclusion that the injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment.
It is the general rule that injuries sustained by an employee going to or returning from work are not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Labor Code, § 3201 et seq. The rule is premised on the theory that ordinarily the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves his work to go home until he resumes his work. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Comm., 21 Cal.2d 751, 753, 754, 135 P.2d 158. However, the employer may agree, either expressly or impliedly, that the relationship shall continue during the period of 'goind and coming,' in which case the employee is entitled to the protection of the act during that period. Such an agreement may be inferred from the fact that the employer furnishes transportation to and from work as an incident of the employment. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Comm., 21 Cal.2d 461, 132 P.2d 815; Trussless Roof Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 119 Cal.App. 91, 6 P.2d 254; cf. Breland v. Traylor Eng. etc., Co., 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 126 P.2d 455. It seems equally clear that such an agreement may also be inferred from the fact that the employer compensates the employee for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.
...we have established exceptions to this rule, such as those in which the employer defrayed the travel expenses (Kobe v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (1950), 35 Cal.2d 33, 35, 215 P.2d 736) and those in which the employee engaged in a special errand for his employer. (Zenith Nat. Ins. Co. v. Workmen......
-
Posey v. Industrial Commission
...rule, otherwise known as the 'going and coming rule.' The nature of the exception has been well-stated in Kobe v. Industrial Accident Commission, 35 Cal.2d 33, 215 P.2d 736, 737: '* * * However, the employer may agree, either expressly or impliedly, that the relationship shall continue duri......
-
Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
...location (Zenith Nat. Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 944, 59 Cal.Rptr. 622, 428 P.2d 606; Kobe v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 33, 215 P.2d 736; 1 Larson, Supra, § 16.20) or if the employer himself Provides the transportation (Harlan v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1924) 194 Ca......
-
American General Insurance Co. v. Coleman
...for an employee in going to and returning from his place of employment, and relied, in large part, on Kobe v. Industrial Accident Commission, 35 Cal.2d 33, 215 P.2d 736. There are at least two important points of distinction between this case and the Kobe case. The Court of Civil Appeals no......