Court Opinion

ID: 9550867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:47.082564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:35.237051
License: Public Domain

WARD, J.—I concur.
I agree that the order affirming the award is the correct disposition of this writ of review. The appellate courts of this state have adopted the rule that when the employment requires the employee to occupy a position that subsequently may be deemed to be a position of danger and an injury occurs to the employee such injury is not only an injury occurring in the course of employment but is one which arises out of the employment and is proximately caused by the employment. The main opinion cites sufficient authority to uphold that rule. Whether the rule is the result of discarding “narrow” views and adopting “liberal” construction is of *815no consequence. It is an established rule and should be accepted and followed without official criticism.
I do not approve of some of the statements that appear in the main opinion, i. e.:
(a) That the use of the revolver was the culmination of an “earlier quarrel.” In my opinion, this statement is based upon surmise and not upon any inference based on the evidence as shown in the record.
(b) That it is “a well known fact” that persons overcome by business or domestic worries are more likely to go to a “bar” to reflect on their situation than to “any other place.” Based on my observation, this statement is not correct. During the oral argument, in response to a question along that general line the attorney for the Industrial Accident Commission specifically stated that the commission did not request -a decision based upon that ground.
As I read the main opinion, it appears that reliance for the conclusion reached is based in part on the authority of recent decisions in “frolicking and horseplay” cases. The facts in those cases are not analogous and need not be mentioned in the present case. The “skylarking” cases arose from injuries caused through play instead of work by or between two or more employees. There is nothing characteristic of “frolicking” when a wife intrudes into a place of business with intent to kill her husband. At the time of the hearing of the present petition before the referee of the Industrial Accident Commission the woman who caused the death of the decedent herein was an inmate of the state prison for women at Tehachapi on a conviction of murder.
The mention of unnecessary true or false matters leads to confusion in future cases when referred to as precedent.