Legal Opinion
Trussless Roof Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 9, 1931No. Docket Nos. 8003, 8004, 8005, 8006, 8007PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
But one question is presented by these five proceedings to annul as many awards made by the respondent Commission. A collision between an interurban car and a passenger automobile containing five homeward bound employees of the petitioner, Trussless Roof Company, resulted in injuries to all five. The question presented is, Were these injuries compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 831) ? The respondent Commission had jurisdiction to make the affirmative answer they did.
Without tracing the steps whereby the principle…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Donovan's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Dominguez v. PendolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- McClain v. Kingsport Improvement Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1922
- Littlefield's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- California Highway Commission v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kobe v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Texas Employers' Insurance v. IngeTexas Supreme Court · 1948
- Zenith National Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Jensen v. Manning & Brown, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1947
- Breland v. Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing, Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.