Flowmaster, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA CTY.

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 1019·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 1993A060508California4,874 words

Opinion

Opinion

James, Gack, Bernheim & Freeman and Ian Gordon for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

NEWSOM, J.

Petitioner Flowmaster, Inc. (Flowmaster), is the defendant in plaintiff Donald Von Dohlen's (hereafter plaintiff) civil action for personal injuries incurred by him while operating a hydraulic power press manufactured by Flowmaster. Plaintiff is Flowmaster's employee and was injured while performing his duties as a "parts maker." Flowmaster moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's suit is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the worker's compensation law. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) [1] The trial court denied the motion, and Flowmaster seeks review by this petition for writ of mandate.

The record shows that Flowmaster is in the business of manufacturing mufflers; it designed, fabricated and assembled hydraulic presses solely for internal use by its employees at the Flowmaster facility. The newest such device was "hydraulic press number 29." Plaintiff was trained in the safe use of the device.

Plaintiff was injured on October 24, 1991, while operating hydraulic press No. 29 (hereafter the press), which had been in use at the Flowmaster plant since September 16, 1991.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.