Legal Opinion

Walker v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1918No. Sac. No. 2713PublishedCited by 22 opinions

PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The petitioner, Pearl P. Walker, conducted at Stockton a lodging-house containing seventeen rooms. The applicant, Louis J. Robinson, was employed by Miss Walker to do certain work in cleaning the house, and while so occupied met with an accidental injury which destroyed the sight of one of his eyes.

Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act excludes from the benefits of the law any person “whose employment is both casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.” The commission found that Robinson’s employment was casual, but that it was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. G. L. Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Fox v. Fafnir Bearing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  3. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Gouanillou v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Barres v. Watterson Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API