Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 , 157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ( Hinojosa ).) "[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit 'sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.' ( Blackman, supra, [ 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].)" ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397-398, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586 .) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen's Comp. 2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 , 157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ( Hinojosa ).) "[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit 'sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.' ( Blackman, supra, [ 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].)" ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397-398, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586 .) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen's Comp. | 1 | 2 |
Beckwith v. Dahlgreen2 sentences2017When it becomes clear that the plaintiffs interests are entitled to legal protection against the conduct of the defendant, the mere fact that the claim is novel will not of itself operate as a bar to the remedy.’ ” (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1050 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 ], citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 1, p. 4, fn. omitted.) Finally, we note that the public policy objectives of the respondeat superior doctrine support a finding that vicarious liability may attach to Modern Alloys under these facts. 2017When it becomes clear that the plaintiffs interests are entitled to legal protection against the conduct of the defendant, the mere fact that the claim is novel will not of itself operate as a bar to the remedy.’ ” (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1050 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 ], citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 1, p. 4, fn. omitted.) Finally, we note that the public policy objectives of the respondeat superior doctrine support a finding that vicarious liability may attach to Modern Alloys under these facts. | 1 | 2 |
Wilson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2020Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 181, 185 [Transporting the materials “may have been essential to applicant’s employment, but unless such materials require a special . . . mode of transportation . . . their mere transport does not warrant exception from the going and coming rule.”].) Assuming for the sake of argument that using a specially equipped vehicle is alone sufficient to create an exception to the coming and going rule, there is no evidence Steger had such a vehicle. | 1 | 1 |
Joyner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2018These cases held that where an employee is injured in a traffic accident on his commute home, while carrying equipment for his job, the employer relationship continued such that the employee's injuries were compensable and not *144 subject to the coming and going rule. ( Joyner, at p. 476, 72 Cal.Rptr. 132 ; Lane, at p. 527, 331 P.2d 99 .) These cases address a different issue than the one before us and therefore we find them inapposite. | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen1 sentence2018These cases held that where an employee is injured in a traffic accident on his commute home, while carrying equipment for his job, the employer relationship continued such that the employee's injuries were compensable and not *144 subject to the coming and going rule. ( Joyner, at p. 476, 72 Cal.Rptr. 132 ; Lane, at p. 527, 331 P.2d 99 .) These cases address a different issue than the one before us and therefore we find them inapposite. | 1 | 1 |
Harvey v. D & L Construction Co.green1 sentence2017Co. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 48, 49 [possible business errand while employee was providing another employee a ride home from an out-of-state worksite].) 8 the coming and going rule and the business errand exception). “„[T]he law of torts is anything but static, and the limits of its development are never set. | 1 | 1 |
Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.green1 sentence2016(Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 962, fn. 3 .) Though not identical, the two versions of the rule are closely related. | 1 | 1 |
Richards v. Metropolitan Life Insurancegreen2 sentences1969Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 236, 239-244 [ 120 P.2d 650 ]; Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 244-245; Boynton v. McKales, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 789 .) Plaintiffs also rely on Breland v. Traylor Engineering etc. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 423-425 [ 126 P.2d 455 ], Breland , indeed, is a direct precedent, since it is a tort case which excludes application of the coming and going rule where the employee-driver receives a transportation allowance from the employer. 1969Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 236, 239-244 [ 120 P.2d 650 ]; Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 244-245; Boynton v. McKales, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 789 .) Plaintiffs also rely on Breland v. Traylor Engineering etc. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 423-425 [ 126 P.2d 455 ], Breland , indeed, is a direct precedent, since it is a tort case which excludes application of the coming and going rule where the employee-driver receives a transportation allowance from the employer. | 1 | 1 |
Breland v. Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing, Co.green2 sentences1969Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 236, 239-244 [ 120 P.2d 650 ]; Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 244-245; Boynton v. McKales, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 789 .) Plaintiffs also rely on Breland v. Traylor Engineering etc. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 423-425 [ 126 P.2d 455 ], Breland , indeed, is a direct precedent, since it is a tort case which excludes application of the coming and going rule where the employee-driver receives a transportation allowance from the employer. 1969Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 236, 239-244 [ 120 P.2d 650 ]; Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 244-245; Boynton v. McKales, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 789 .) Plaintiffs also rely on Breland v. Traylor Engineering etc. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 423-425 [ 126 P.2d 455 ], Breland , indeed, is a direct precedent, since it is a tort case which excludes application of the coming and going rule where the employee-driver receives a transportation allowance from the employer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blackman v. Great American First Savings Bank
green
2 sentences2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 , 157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ( Hinojosa ).) "[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit 'sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.' ( Blackman, supra, [ 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].)" ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397-398, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586 .) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen's Comp. 2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 , 157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ( Hinojosa ).) "[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit 'sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.' ( Blackman, supra, [ 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].)" ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397-398, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586 .) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen's Comp. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America
green
2 sentences2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 , 157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ( Hinojosa ).) "[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit 'sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.' ( Blackman, supra, [ 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].)" ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397-398, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586 .) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen's Comp. 2018Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 (Hinojosa).) “[T]his means not just any trivial benefit to the employer, but a benefit ‘sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel.’ ( Blackman, supra, [223 Cal.App.3d] at p. 604.)” ( Jorge, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 397–398.) The California Supreme Court recognized the required vehicle exception to the coming and going rule in Smith v. Workmen’s Comp. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences2018App. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 814 , 73 Cal.Rptr. 253 , 447 P.2d 365 ( Smith ), holding that an employee is acting in the course of employment during his or her commute when the employer requires the employee to bring a car to work. 2018App. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 814 , 73 Cal.Rptr. 253 , 447 P.2d 365 ( Smith ), holding that an employee is acting in the course of employment during his or her commute when the employer requires the employee to bring a car to work. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
D a & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc., a Corporation v. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
green
1 sentence2018Further, we note that in both of these cases, the employee was not being paid by his employer for his commute time when the accident happened. ( Ibid .) Finally, plaintiffs rely on federal cases construing the Portal-to-Portal Act, even though that act contains an exemption for travel time missing from California law. ( Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 590 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 , 995 P.2d 139 .) In D A & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc. v. Mitchell (10th Cir. 1958) 262 F.2d 552 , the question was whether the time an employee spent driving a truck mounted with heavy, specialized equipment (30,000-poun | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.
green
2 sentences2018Further, we note that in both of these cases, the employee was not being paid by his employer for his commute time when the accident happened. ( Ibid .) Finally, plaintiffs rely on federal cases construing the Portal-to-Portal Act, even though that act contains an exemption for travel time missing from California law. ( Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 590 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 , 995 P.2d 139 .) In D A & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc. v. Mitchell (10th Cir. 1958) 262 F.2d 552 , the question was whether the time an employee spent driving a truck mounted with heavy, specialized equipment (30,000-poun 2018Further, we note that in both of these cases, the employee was not being paid by his employer for his commute time when the accident happened. ( Ibid .) Finally, plaintiffs rely on federal cases construing the Portal-to-Portal Act, even though that act contains an exemption for travel time missing from California law. ( Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 590 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 , 995 P.2d 139 .) In D A & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc. v. Mitchell (10th Cir. 1958) 262 F.2d 552 , the question was whether the time an employee spent driving a truck mounted with heavy, specialized equipment (30,000-poun | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Boynton v. McKales
green
1 sentence1969Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 236, 239-244 [ 120 P.2d 650 ]; Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 244-245; Boynton v. McKales, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 789 .) Plaintiffs also rely on Breland v. Traylor Engineering etc. Co. (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 415, 423-425 [ 126 P.2d 455 ], Breland , indeed, is a direct precedent, since it is a tort case which excludes application of the coming and going rule where the employee-driver receives a transportation allowance from the employer. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.