Bettencourt

Bettencourt v. Industrial Accident Commission

Good Law
175 Cal. 559·1917 Cal. LEXIS 715·166 P. 323
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 25, 1917Sac. No. 2572. Sac. No. 2573.California1,180 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

The Industrial Accident Commission made its award in favor of one Bettencourt, the award being based on injuries which admittedly he sustained while in the employ of Reclamation District No. 900. The district has petitioned for a review of the proceedings, presenting several material propositions for consideration. Only one of these, however, calls for determination, as that determination will be decisive of the controversy. It is conceded that Bettencourt’s wages were paid by the district and that he was employed by the district, but these concessions in no wise determine the liability of the district. That determination rests upon the language of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as applied to an employer of the character of this district.

Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as it read at the time Bettencourt sustained his injury defined employers as follows: “The term ‘employer’ as used in sections 12 to 35, inclusive, of this act shall be construed to mean: ■ The state, and each county, city and county, city, school district and all public corporations therein, and every person, firm, voluntary association, and private corporation (including any public service…

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.