Freedman v. Industrial Accident Commission
California Court of Appeal
1DissentThompson, J.
I dissent. The majority opinion appears to me to be contrary to law. It fails to apply the uniform rule that a separate and several liability exists against each employer regardless of whether he is a coemployer or a member of a joint enterprise. The liability of joint adventurers is the same as that of partners. The finding that Freedman and Hasson were engaged in a joint enterprise is therefore immaterial and may be disregarded as surplusage. Even though the evidence may not support the finding of a joint adventure, it seems to me to be neither necessary nor proper to reverse the award.
*635The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- S. A. Gerrard Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Riskin v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943