Rico v. Industrial Accident Commission

30 P.2d 584, 137 Cal. App. 772, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 902
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 16, 1934
DocketDocket No. 1088.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 P.2d 584 (Rico 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
Rico v. Industrial Accident Commission, 30 P.2d 584, 137 Cal. App. 772, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

MARKS, J.

Isabel T. Rico is the widow, and the other petitioners are the minor children of herself and Manuel P. Rico. This is a proceeding to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying compensation to petitioners for the death of Manuel.

*773 Manuel was an unemployed and indigent resident of the city of San Diego. To relieve his financial distress and that of his family he was given work two days a week at four dollars a day. He received his pay in orders for food issued by the county welfare commission of the county of San Diego. Bills represented by purchases under these orders were paid out of the outside indigent fund of the county which was raised by general taxation.

On December 27, 1932, Manuel, while returning from work, which may be described as “made work” supplied to permit him to obtain the necessaries of life, fell from a truck belonging to the county of San Diego and was instantly killed. A proceeding was instituted before the Industrial Accident Commission to obtain compensation for his dependents. The commission denied the petition upon the ground that Manuel was not an employee as that term is defined by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

This same question was before the Supreme Court in the case of McBurney v. Industrial Acc. Com., 220 Cal. 124 [30 Pac. (2d) 414], and the order of the commission denying compensation was affirmed. Upon the authority of that case a like conclusion must be reached here.

The order is affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

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

Related

County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
637 P.2d 681 (California Supreme Court, 1981)
Clark v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
262 N.W. 249 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1935)
City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Accident Commission
47 P.2d 1096 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Garney v. Department of Labor & Industries
41 P.2d 400 (Washington Supreme Court, 1935)
County of San Bernardino v. Industrial Accident Commission
37 P.2d 122 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 P.2d 584, 137 Cal. App. 772, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rico-v-industrial-accident-commission-calctapp-1934.