Calaveras Copper Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

RICHARDS, J.

The petitioners, as the employer and its insurer of one Andy Jordan, seek by this proceeding to have annulled an award made by the Industrial Accident Commission to said Andy Jordan by reason of certain injuries received by him while in the employ of said Calaveras Copper Company. The sole question presented for our consideration is as to whether or not at the time of his said injuries said Jordan, in doing the work out of which his injuries immediately arose, was acting within the scope of his employment.

[1]

The particular work which said Jordan was doing at the time the accident occurred which caused his said injuries was this: He was, at said time and for some time prior thereto had been, employed by the Calaveras Copper Company as a truck driver in and about its property at Copperopolis, California, which property included a sawmill upon its premises at said place, his duty as such truck driver being to haul such lumber, wood, or other articles from place to place as directed by his employer. On the date of his injuries he had been instructed to haul some wood for one of the officials of the company, and in order to facilitate the doing of said work he concluded to put some additional sideboard on his truck and to fix the tailboard thereof so as to be able to carry at each load a larger quantity of wood. In order to procure the materials for

[90]

these changes he went into the sawmill of the company and started up a rip-saw therein in order to cut the pieces required for such purpose to the needed sizes. While so engaged the teeth of the saw caught Jordan’s glove, drawing his fingers into contact with the saw and lacerating them severely.

The petitioners contend that in thus making use of the saw Jordan was acting outside of the course of his employment as a truck driver, and was not, therefore, entitled to be awarded compensation for his injuries occasioned thereby. Upon a careful reading of the record herein we are satisfied that upon the facts presented to the commission this contention cannot be sustained. The evidence is quite conflicting, but we think sufficient appears from the testimony of the injured employee and others to show that there was sufficient evidence before the commission to sustain the award.