Merino v. Pacific Coast Borax Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
TAPPAAN, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff recovered judgment before the trial court and defendant appeals from the judgment, and also from the order denying its motion for a new trial.
The cause of action, as stated in plaintiff’s complaint, is one based upon the provisions of section 26 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Stats. 1917, p. 831, as amended Stats. 1927, p. 1213). This section provides as follows: “The claim of an employee for compensation shall not affect his right of action for damages arising out of injury or death against any person other than the employer; and any employer having paid,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Western Metal Supply Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Crabbe v. Mammoth Channel Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Michener v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Canadian & American Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Clarita Land & Investment Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Williams v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Baugh v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- French v. RishellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- Burum v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Singleton v. BonnesenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.