Thomas v. Edgington Oil Co.

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment

1

in an action for personal injuries. We affirm the judgment.

[63]

Plaintiff was an employee of Noble Construction Company (Noble). Under an arrangement between that company and defendant Edgington Oil Company (Edgington), he was engaged as a laborer, doing laborer’s work on the premises of Edgington. The crew to which he was assigned consisted of some Noble employees and some Edgington employees. They were under the supervision of defendant Beauvais, a foreman employed by Edgington. The sole issue before us on this appeal is whether the declarations before the trial court show without conflict that plaintiff was, by reason of his relations to Edgington and to Beauvais, a “special employee” of Edgington so that his sole remedy against Edgington was to proceed under the workers’ compensation law (Lab. Code, § 3601).

I

Plaintiff relies on

McFarland

v.

Voorheis-Trindle Co.

(1959) 52 Cal.2d 698 [343 P.2d 923], and on

Miller

v.

Long Beach Oil Dev. Co.

(1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 546 [334 P.2d 695], Defendants, and the trial court, relied on

Martin

v.

Phillips Petroleum Co.

(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 916 [117 Cal.Rptr. 269]. We need not now determine whether

Martin

is, as plaintiff contends, not controlling because contra to the Supreme Court’s decision in

McFarland.