Court Opinion

ID: 9863764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:53:46.292689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:16.497936
License: Public Domain

WOOD, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. In the former appeal in this matter (Rideaux v. Torgrimson, 12 Cal. (2d) 633 [86 Pac. (2d) 826]) it was held that an action by an employee against his employer, based upon the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act of 1917, as it existed in the year 1936, survives the death of the employer. It was also held on that appeal that the plea of res judicata could not be considered since a defense of this nature must be either pleaded or proved and the record before the court was not such as to permit consideration of such defense.
The record now before us shows a situation very different than that of the former appeal. In her fourth amended complaint plaintiff alleged that she had applied to the industrial accident commission for relief under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that her application had been denied on the ground that her employment was not such as to bring her within the provisions of the act; and that thereafter the Supreme Court of California had denied her petition for a writ to review the order of the industrial accident commission. From the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint it is apparent that she may not now rely upon the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act but must base her petition for redress upon the provisions of section 1971 of the Civil Code (which became sec. 2800 of the Labor Code in 1937). Causes of action arising under section 1971 of the Civil Code are founded on the negligence of the employer. Such causes of action sound in tort and abate with the death of the tortfeasor.
I do not concur in that portion of the opinion of Mr. Justice McComb in which the view is expressed that the fourth amended complaint introduces a new cause of action.
Moore, P. J., concurred.
*277A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 25, 1940. Curtis, J., voted for a hearing.