Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freedman v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 23, 1945No. Civ. 7115Published

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

  1. S. A. Gerrard Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Riskin v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API