Seymour v. Setzer Forest Products, Inc.

PEEK, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered in favor of defendants following the order of the trial court sustaining defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.

The complaint alleged that defendant corporation operates an industrial plant, and in the course thereof, owns and operates a mechanical lumber carrier vehicle; that the defendant Dunn, while in the course of his employment by defendant corporation, so carelessly and negligently operated the same as to cause fatal injuries to plaintiff’s husband, who was also an employee of the

corporation;

that the decedent was on the defendants’ premises preparatory to going on duty for the afternoon shift; that it was a permitted practice for employees to enter the establishment and AÚsit with one another during, before and after working hours; that decedent had so entered that portion of the plant where said lumber carrier was located prior to commencement of his afternoon shift, and at the time thereof was talking with other employees when the fatal accident occurred. The defendants’ demurrer, among other things, charges that under the facts alleged plaintiff is limited to the recovery of compensation benefits under the provisions of the Labor Code of this state, and hence does not state a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the superior court.

In support of the judgment, defendants argue that where the conditions of section 3600 of the Labor Code are met, the Industrial Accident Commission has exclusive jurisdiction, and therefore as a matter of law, the superior court has no jurisdiction OArer the subject matter. We cannot agree with respondents’ interpretation of the going and coming rule upon which it places principal reliance.

As stated in 27 California Jurisprudence 380 it is the general rule

“. . . that injuries sustained by an employee while going to or coming from his place of employment do not come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, although in a broad sense they may be said to be incidental to his employment. Exceptions to this general rule are made in

[610]