Legal Opinion · Dissent

Enterprise Foundry Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1929No. Docket No. S.F. 12966Published

1Dissent

SHENK, J., Dissenting.—

I dissent. The majority opinion properly concedes that the gunshot wound which resulted in the death of the deceased employee, Goytan, arose out of the employment. But the going and coming rule is applied and it is held that the injury was not received by the decedent while “performing . . . service incidental to” the employment and that he was not “acting within the course of his employment,” as contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This holding is contrary to the finding of the Industrial Accident Commission and, in my opinion, is based upon the erroneous…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of Lampert v. . SiemonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. San Diego & Arizona Railway Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Claim of Lampert v. SiemonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API