Moise v. Owens
| Decision Date | 24 March 1950 |
| Citation | 216 P.2d 22,96 Cal.App.2d 617 |
| Parties | MOISE v. OWENS. Civ. 17413. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Crider, Runkle & Tilson, Los Angeles, for appellant. By Donald E. Ruppe, and E. Spurgeon Rothrock, Los Angeles.
George A. Pickering, Los Angeles, for respondent.
The sole question for decision is whether the Industrial Accident Commission has exclusive jurisdiction of an action on account of injuries arising out of the negligence of the employer while the employee was engaged in the course of his employment.
Appellant in pursuit of his business as a cement contractor had respondent and other workmen engaged on the premises of a patron in carrying sacks of cement from a pile in front of appellant's truck which was parked with its front bumper about four feet from the driveway curb to a pile 10 feet away. Before attempting to drive the truck out appellant informed respondent and his colaborers of his intention and entered the driver's seat from its left side. While respondent was standing in front of the truck and in plain view of appellant, the two engaged in conversation. As respondent stooped to pick up the last sack of cement, appellant started the truck. It jumped forward and crushed respondent's legs between the wheel and the curb causing severe injuries.
Thereafter respondent filed his application with the Industrial Accident Commission for adjustment of his claim based upon the injuries so received. After receiving compensation for 11 weeks, he advised the commission that he was about to file a negligence action in the superior court based upon the same facts. Pursuant to such advice the commission suspended its proceedings in the matter. In compliance with section 3856 of the Labor Code respondent stipulated with appellant's insurance carrier that he would recognize its lien upon any judgment he might obtain for the full amount expended on him by such carrier. In his answer to the action appellant included as an affirmative defense a plea that exclusive jurisdiction of the matter rested with the Industrial Accident Commission. After a trial of the issues judgment for $2960 was entered in favor of respondent.
The law is clearly established that when a workman suffers an injury to which he was exposed in the course of his employment, and it arises out of the employment, the Industrial Accident Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the liability and award. Labor Code, sec. 3601; Freire v. Matson Navigation Co., 19 Cal.2d 8, 118 P.2d 809; Baugh v. Rogers, 24 Cal.2d 200, 148 P.2d 633, 152 A.L.R. 1043; Nelson v. Associated Indemnity Corporation, 19 Cal.App.2d 564, 66 P.2d 184. The theory upon which compensation in such cases is awarded is that the causal connection between the employment and the injury consists in the facts (1) that the employment required the presence of the employee at the spot where he suffered his injury and (2) that it was caused by some human or mechanical instrumentality incidental to the employment. Labor Code, sec. 3600; Frigidaire Corporation v. Industrial Accident Commission, 103 Cal.App. 27, 283 P. 974; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 36 Cal.App. 280, 171 P. 1088; Kimbol v. Industrial Accident Commission, 173 Cal. 351, 354, 160 P. 150, L.R.A.1917B, 595, Ann.Cas.1917E, 312; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 86 Cal.App.2d 726, 730, 195 P.2d 919; 18 Cal. Law Review, page 562; General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corporation v. Industrial Accident Commission, 186 Cal. 653, 657, 200 P. 419.
A number of decisions demonstrate that the instant cause is compensable and is justiciable only before the commission and not before the court. In Freire v. Matson Navigation Company, supra, the employee in stepping from a taxicab onto the bulk-head adjoining the pier to which defendant's ship was moored was struck by defendant's automobile operated by one of its employees. The effect of that decision is that where the hazard is directly connected with the employment and the injury arises out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment, the Workmen's Compensation Act, Labor Code, § 3201 et seq., is to be liberally construed in favor of jurisdiction in the commission with the purpose of extending the benefits of the act for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment. The rule is not altered because a plaintiff believes that he can establish negligence on the part of his employer and brings a civil suit for damages. If the injury falls within the scope of the act, a proceeding thereunder constitutes his exclusive remedy. In Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Industrial Accident Commission, 18 Cal.2d 40, 112 P.2d 615, the employer, a terminal company, was using a dock of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Pacific Coast Borax Co.
...Freire v. Matson Nav. Co., 19 Cal.2d 8, 10, 118 P.2d 809; Peterson v. Moran, 111 Cal.App.2d 766, 768, 245 P.2d 540; Moise v. Owens, 96 Cal.App.2d 617, 619, 216 P.2d 22. Though it may be more opportunistic for a particular plaintiff to seek to circumscribe the purview of compensation coverag......
-
Deauville v. Hall
...P.2d 8, Popejoy v. Hannon, 37 Cal.2d 159, 231 P.2d 484; Baugh v. Rogers, 24 Cal.2d 200, 148 P.2d 633, 152 A.L.R. 1043; Moise v. Owens, 96 Cal.App.2d 617, 216 P.2d 22. The Workmen's Compensation Act provides an exclusive and complete system of compensation for injuries to employees arising o......
-
Profitt v. J. G. Watts Const. Co.
...Freire v. Matson Nav. Co., 19 Cal.2d 8, 10, 118 P.2d 809; Peterson v. Moran, 111 Cal.App.2d 766, 768, 245 P.2d 540; Moise v. Owens, 96 Cal.App.2d 617, 619, 216 P.2d 22. Though it may be more opportunistic for a particular plaintiff to seek to circumscribe the purview of compensation coverag......
-
Popejoy v. Hannon
...has been referred to as an affirmative defense in Baugh v. Rogers, supra, 24 Cal.2d at page 204, 148 P.2d at page 636; Moise v. Owens, 96 Cal.App.2d 617, 618, 216 P.2d 22, and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.2d 601, 605, 145 P.2d The views expressed in these decisions ......