Legal Opinion
Graham v. Hopkins
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 3, 1993No. A057304PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WHITE, P. J.
Charles Lee Graham (plaintiff) appeals after the trial court, sitting as fact finder, concluded that the machine which caused injury to plaintiff was not a “power press” within the meaning of Labor Code section 4558. That section creates an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation system. (§ 3602; Bingham v. CTS Corp. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 56, 61 [282 Cal.Rptr. 161].) It permits a worker to sue his employer when the worker is injured by a “power press” which is operated without a point of operation guard. We affirm the trial court judgment.
I
Fa…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Silver v. SilverSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Weber v. City CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Board of Education v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Ceja v. J. R. Wood, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- Norsco Enterprises v. City of FremontCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Aguilera v. Henry Soss & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- McCoy v. Zahniser Graphics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.