Court Opinion

ID: 9559640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:32:41.474933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:27.344144
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. It appeared by both pleading and proof on behalf of the plaintiffs that as a part of the working rules and contracts of employment the defendant water district permitted, and the circumstances of location of work and hours of employment required, the use of the defendant’s train as a means of access to and from lodgings provided by the employer. The railroad is not a common carrier and the passage was free of charge. The trial court applied the “premises” rule approved by this court in State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 28 [227 Pac. 168], and numerous other cases to like effect. The judgment has been reversed on the theory of the “going and coming” rule notwithstanding the showing, clear to my mind, that the “premises” rule should apply to the facts appearing in the record.
Rehearing denied.
Shenk, J., and Preston, J., voted for a rehearing.