First National Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal

First National Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission

262 P. 38, 87 Cal. App. 537, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 79

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 13, 1927

DocketDocket No. 5945.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 P. 38 (First National Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 262 P. 38, 87 Cal. App. 537, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

It appearing that the petition as filed is erroneously entitled, the title of this proceeding is hereby amended to read as above stated, and the clerk is directed to amend the register and index accordingly.

From the evidence as indicated by the petition and answer, it appears that the accident and the injury to the employee, John Beclder, resulted from the wilful and serious misconduct of one Doble, foreman of the carpenter depart *538 ment of the employer. Under the provisions of section 6 (b) of the Workmen’s Compensation etc. Act of 1917 (Stats. 1919, p. 912, and Stats. 1923, p. 376), the employer is responsible for this misconduct if Doble was “an executive or managing officer or general superintendent thereof.” According to the rule established by the decision of the supreme court in Gordon v. Industrial Acc. Com., 199 Cal. 420 [249 Pac. 849], it seems necessary to hold that Doble was a “managing officer” of the employer within the meaning of the language used in said section 6 (b).

For this reason the petition for a writ of review is denied.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Petitioner’s application to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 9, 1928.

All the Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CONREY, P. J.

It appearing that the petition as filed is erroneously entitled, the title of this proceeding is hereby amended to read as above stated, and the clerk is directed to amend the register and index accordingly.

From the evidence as indicated by the petition and answer, it appears that the accident and the injury to the employee, John Beclder, resulted from the wilful and serious misconduct of one Doble, foreman of the carpenter depart *538 ment of the employer. Under the provisions of section 6 (b) of the Workmen’s Compensation etc. Act of 1917 (Stats. 1919, p. 912, and Stats. 1923, p. 376), the employer is responsible for this misconduct if Doble was “an executive or managing officer or general superintendent thereof.” According to the rule established by the decision of the supreme court in Gordon v. Industrial Acc. Com., 199 Cal. 420 [249 Pac. 849], it seems necessary to hold that Doble was a “managing officer” of the employer within the meaning of the language used in said section 6 (b).

For this reason the petition for a writ of review is denied.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Petitioner’s application to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 9, 1928.

All the Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 38, 87 Cal. App. 537, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-pictures-inc-v-industrial-accident-commission-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack