Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n
Before: Wilbur, Sloss
Synopsis
PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Opinion — Sloss
SLOSS, J.
The district court of appeal for the second appellate district issued a writ of review to test the validity of an award of compensation made by the Industrial Accident Commission. The proceeding resulted in a judgment affirming the award. Upon application of the employer the matter was transferred to this court. Our further examination has led us to a concurrence with the conclusions of the district court of appeal. We, therefore, adopt the opinion of that court, prepared by Works, J.,
pro tem.,
as a correct statement of the facts and an adequate treatment of the questions of law arising on those facts. The opinion reads as follows:
“The Whiting-Mead Commercial Company was engaged in the business of wrecking houses and Miguel Duarte was one of its workmen. While at work on one of the company’s jobs Duarte ran a nail into'the palm of his right hand, but the wound was not so severe as to cause him to cease his work, although the hand had to be bandaged. Twice during the day, once at noon and once at about 3 o’clock, the bandage was soaked with turpentine by an agent, of the company in an endeavor to alleviate the pain caused by the nail wound. Soon after the second application of the turpentine, Duarte temporarily ceased his labor and struck a match for the purpose of lighting a cigarette. The saturated bandage was ignited by the match and the hand was seriously burned. Duarte applied to the Industrial Accident Commission for compensation on account of the disability resulting from the burn and an award was made in his favor. The petitioner now asks that the award be annulled.
“At the time he was burned Duarte was in the course of Ms employment as a workman of the company, but it is contended that the injury did not arise out of the employment. There are many decided cases which bear more or less directly upon the question here presented. In one of them
(Martin
v.
Lovibond
&
Sons,
7 B. W. C. C. 243), a drayman employed by a firm of brewers was run down by an automobile and killed. His hours of employment were from 8 in the morn
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)