State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

176 Cal. App. 2d 10, 1 Cal. Rptr. 73 (1959)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal
176 Cal. App. 2d 10, 1 Cal. Rptr. 73 (1959)

Facts

Gaylord B. Wallin (plaintiff) was working as a carpenter when a rusty nail flew up and penetrated his eye. This injury was covered under workers’ compensation. Wallin could not return to work because he was having trouble seeing due to his eye injury. While off work and experiencing double vision due to his eye injury, Wallin was sawing lumber for a personal project when he amputated one of his fingers with the saw. Wallin had been using this type of saw for many years and never had any trouble with it until his eye was injured. Wallin filed a workers’-compensation claim for his amputated finger. The referee of the Industrial Accident Commission (the commission) found that Wallin’s eye injury caused the loss of Wallin’s finger. On petition for reconsideration, the State Compensation Insurance Fund (the fund) (defendant) argued that Wallin’s intervening negligence made his finger injury not compensable. The commission determined that the fund failed to prove Wallin had been negligent. The fund appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership