Legal Opinion · Dissent

Newland v. Cnty. of L. A.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided June 18, 2018No. B277638Published

1Dissent

BAKER, J., Dissenting

Sufficiently regular use of a personal vehicle for travel to perform employment duties, where it confers a substantial incidental benefit on an employer, can properly support application of the vehicle-use exception even if the vehicle was not required for such duties "at the time of the accident," as the majority today holds. ( Lobo v. Tamco (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 297, 302-303, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 718 [evidence that "[d]uring 2005, the year of the accident, [the employee] visited customer sites [using his own car only] five times or fewer" is sufficient to support a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Lobo v. TamcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Yu Qin Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

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

Powered by the Exa API