TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moore & Scott Iron Works v. Industrial Accident Commission

MOORE & SCOTT IRON WORKS (A Corporation), Et Al., Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION Et Al., Respondents

Moore & Scott Iron Works v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 172 P. 1114 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 25, 1918
Docket
No. Civ. No. 2467.
Judges
THE COURT. —
Citations
172 P. 111436 Cal. App. 582
Headnotes
Workmen’s Compensation Act—Death of Ship Bomer—Departure for Lunch by Unusual Boute.—Where a person employed1 as a holter-up within the hull oí a ship in the course of construction left his employment for the purpose of going to lunch, taking an unusual route, and in going down a scaffolding and ladder on the outside of the ship, was killed, his death did not take place within the course of his employment, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Summary
APPLICATION for a Writ of Review originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District to annul an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The award of the Industrial Accident Commission in this case must be annulled upon the following considerations:

Michael Higgins, employed as a bolter-up within the hull of a ship in the course of construction at the Moore & Scott *583 Iron Works, left his employment for the purpose of going to his lunch; he went by an unusual route, and undertook to go down a scaffolding and ladder on the outside of the ship—a means not intended for his use in leaving* the ship at any time—another and perfectly safe method of exit having been provided by his employers. In doing so he lost his hold and fell, and was killed. ■ Upon these facts it must be held that the death of Higgins did not take place in the course of his employment; nor was he at the time of the accident performing any service growing out of or incidental to his employment, nor acting within the course thereof.

(Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Son, 1 B. W. C. C. [Eng.] 197.)

The findings of the commission to the effect that he might have been leaving his work for the purpose of getting more bolts for use therein, or for the purpose of getting fresh air, seem to us to rest upon nothing but conjecture. There is no evidence in the record to sustain them. The fresh air, if he needed it, could have been obtained in a perfectly safe place upon the deck of the vessel, and nearer to the point of his immediate employment than the scaffolding from which he fell, and there seem to have been no bolts or other material necessary to his work to be obtained at the place toward which he was going. It is certain from this record, it seems to us, that he was, as has been said, simply abandoning his work before the hour when he was permitted to leave it.

The award is annulled.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 24, 1918.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11935: 11941: 11950: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission112 P.2d 615 (Cal. 1941)
  2. Utah Apex Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission248 P. 490 (Utah 1926)
  3. Nelson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Shatwell1950 OK 209, 222 P.2d 750
  4. Honda v. Higa33 Haw. 576 (1935) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Nelson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Shatwell1950 OK 209, 222 P.2d 750
  2. Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission112 P.2d 615 (Cal. 1941)
  3. Honda v. Higa33 Haw. 576 (1935) · Dissent
  4. Utah Apex Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission248 P. 490 (Utah 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list