Stumar v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Sep 5, 1936 No. Civ. 10983Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the employee's death arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment because he was performing his duties and exercising authorized discretion in his choice of transportation. An employer cannot retroactively deny compensation by claiming they would not have authorized the specific method of travel used by an employee who was otherwise acting within the scope of his duties.

Issues

Whether the injuries received by the deceased arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment.

Disposition. annulled and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The commission erred in ruling that the injuries did not occur in the course of Stumar’s employment. Unquestionably he was performing his duties in attempting to inspect the set.”

“An employer may not, after the occurrence of an accident, defeat a just claim by merely asserting that he would not have authorized the course pursued by the employee.”

“Stumar was vested with and required to use initiative and discretion in the performance of his duties. The exercise of initiative and discretion is inconsistent with the requirement of prior acquiescence.”

[430]

WOOD, J.

Petitioner seeks to review a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission by which she was denied compensation for the death of her husband, Charles Stumar, who was killed while landing an airplane at a location of his employer, Universal Pictures Corporation.

There is no conflict of consequence in the evidence. Universal Pictures Corporation was about to make a picture, “Storm Over The Andes”. At a point, which will be called the location, about thirty miles from the main studio of the producing company there had been erected a set for the purpose of taking motion pictures. It was necessary to take some of the pictures from an airplane. According to the company’s original plans the taking of the picture was to commence on Monday, July 1, 1935, and the picture required that the set be completed by the night of Saturday, June 29th. Charles Stumar was the chief camera "man for the production, and George H. Wiley, who was killed in the same accident with Stumar, was the art director for the production. It was Stumar’s duty to inspect the set before the producing company commenced. the taking of pictures. Wiley had designed the set in question and it was his duty to inspect the set after its completion to see that it was built according to the plans and specifications. The chief camera man had the right to instruct the art director to prepare a set in such way as to suit his purposes. It was customary for both men to make inspection without specific instructions and on their own initiative. Stumar was working on a different picture on Saturday, the 29th, and did not expect to finish in time to inspect the new set on that day. Accordingly he engaged the services of a pilot to take him to the new location on Sunday morning. The work on the old picture, however, was completed earlier than expected on Saturday, so that Stumar could leave at 5:45 P. M. Stumar and Wiley at once started in Stumar’s private airplane for the new location, in time to arrive at that point before the superintendent .of construction had left and in time to inspect the set before dark. On arriving at the location they circled the field once and in attempting to land both were accidentally killed. It was optional with Stumar whether he should use his own transportation in going to location

[431]

Stumar v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief