Garcia v. Yedor

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

In this case the trial court rendered judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, the only question to be determined is whether the amended complaint states a cause of action.

(Union Flower M.

v.

Southern Cal. Flower M.,

10 Cal.2d 671 [76 P.2d 503];

Bradley Co.

v.

Ridgeway,

14 Cal.App.2d 326 [58 P.2d 194].)

[368]

The amended complaint alleges that defendants operated a die easting plant, with employees, machinery, tools and equipment; that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants; that the plaintiff entered the plant before it was time for him to go to work, and went to a part of the plant where there was located a die casting machine operated by another employee of the defendants to visit with that employee; whereupon the machine was negligently started, thereby spattering molten metal into plaintiff’s eye, and upon parts of his body to his consequent injury and damage.

Judgment for defendants was rendered upon the assumption that the plaintiff employee having been injured upon the premises of the employer, his only remedy was before the Industrial Accident Commission, in accordance with the workmen’s compensation provisions of our Labor Code (Lab. Code, § 3601). This would be true if the only inference which may be drawn from the complaint is that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment.

With certain exceptions, it is settled law in this state that one injured coming or going to his work is not injured in the course of his employment. These exceptions are discussed in

Freire

v.

Matson Navigation Co.,

19 Cal.2d 8 [118 P.2d 809], In that case the employee was injured while on his way to work, and while he was upon a bulkhead leading to a pier from which he was to embark to reach his place of employment. The bulkhead was under the control of the employer. It was held that while the employee was not under the employer’s control or management at the time of his injury, the bulkhead was the “means of access” to the pier from which the employee had to embark to reach his place of employment, and his remedy was under workmen’s compensation. A somewhat similar situation existed in