Wright

Wright v. St. of CA

Good Law
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 135·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 91·233 Cal. App. 4th 1218·80 Cal. Comp. Cases 157
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2015A139034California7,564 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richman, J.

— Plaintiff Monnie Wright was a correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin), who lived on the San Quentin premises, in a unit he rented from his employer, defendant State of California (State). Wright was injured when he fell in the course of his lengthy walk from his home to his actual place of work. Following his injury, Wright sought workers’ compensation, and received it. He thereafter filed suit against the State, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers’ compensation was Wright’s exclusive remedy, an argument based on the “premises line” rule, which provides that the employment relationship commences once the employee enters the employer’s premises. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

We reverse, concluding that it was error to hold Wright’s tort claim barred solely because he was on his employer’s premises at the time of his fall, particularly where Wright lived on those very premises.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1997, Wright began working at San Quentin. The following year, he moved into a State-owned rental unit within the gated area of the San Quentin grounds. Living there was voluntary on Wright’s part: it was not a…

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.