Stansbury v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal

Stansbury v. Industrial Accident Commission

171 P. 698, 36 Cal. App. 68, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 613

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 26, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2446.

StatusPublished

This text of 171 P. 698 (Stansbury 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

Stansbury v. Industrial Accident Commission, 171 P. 698, 36 Cal. App. 68, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

WORKS, J., pro tem.

The respondent Industrial Accident Commission allowed compensation to W. J. Husong for an injury received while he was in the employ of petitioner and petitioner now asks that the award be annulled. It is conceded that the employment was casual. It is also contended by petitioner that the injury did not occur in the usual course of his business. The commission found that petitioner “was in the business of leasing certain road-making machinery and outfit, and that it was necessary and in the usual course of said business to keep the said machinery and outfit in repair; that the work and employment of the applicant at the time of his injury was the repairing of such ma- ■ chinery, and was therefore in the usual course of the business of the employer. ’ ’

The finding that the petitioner was engaged in the business of leasing road-making machinery and outfit is amply supported by the evidence, but the finding that the applicant was injured while making repairs on machinery used in that *69 business finds no support whatever in it. In addition to the machinery used in the business, the petitioner had in his possession a certain clam-shell dredge, which he had acquired from a contractor who had been using it in harbor work. It was in no sense road-making machinery or equipment. This dredge petitioner was about to lease to another, with an option to purchase the same, but some repairs were necessary upon it before it could go out. The applicant for compensation was employed to make these repairs and was injured while prosecuting the labor. The work being performed by the applicant was no more nearly in the course of the employer’s business of leasing road-making machinery than if it had been the work of shoeing a horse or repairing a mowing-machine owned by the employer. The case is directly within the rule laid down in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 748, [158 Pac. 1031].

The award is annulled.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

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

WORKS, J., pro tem.

The respondent Industrial Accident Commission allowed compensation to W. J. Husong for an injury received while he was in the employ of petitioner and petitioner now asks that the award be annulled. It is conceded that the employment was casual. It is also contended by petitioner that the injury did not occur in the usual course of his business. The commission found that petitioner “was in the business of leasing certain road-making machinery and outfit, and that it was necessary and in the usual course of said business to keep the said machinery and outfit in repair; that the work and employment of the applicant at the time of his injury was the repairing of such ma- ■ chinery, and was therefore in the usual course of the business of the employer. ’ ’

The finding that the petitioner was engaged in the business of leasing road-making machinery and outfit is amply supported by the evidence, but the finding that the applicant was injured while making repairs on machinery used in that *69 business finds no support whatever in it. In addition to the machinery used in the business, the petitioner had in his possession a certain clam-shell dredge, which he had acquired from a contractor who had been using it in harbor work. It was in no sense road-making machinery or equipment. This dredge petitioner was about to lease to another, with an option to purchase the same, but some repairs were necessary upon it before it could go out. The applicant for compensation was employed to make these repairs and was injured while prosecuting the labor. The work being performed by the applicant was no more nearly in the course of the employer’s business of leasing road-making machinery than if it had been the work of shoeing a horse or repairing a mowing-machine owned by the employer. The case is directly within the rule laid down in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 748, [158 Pac. 1031].

The award is annulled.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 P. 698, 36 Cal. App. 68, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansbury-v-industrial-accident-commission-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack