Hello There, Guest! Login Register
Index    |     Search    |     Members    |     Help

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
California Going and Coming Rule Exceptions?
#11
not an atty.
your fact pattern definitely seems to show the hazards were greater for employees then the public at large.
while lexis-nexis is the standard legal research tool, i believe you can do some preliminary free research here:
http://www.appealsboardreporter.com/Subj...Index.aspx
they also have a search feature.
you have to register and you may have to buy a subscription to download detailed case summaries.
Reminder :
........Each state has their own comp system; POST YOUR STATE to get accurate information. Use the search feature to find information from similar questions.
THANKS FOR POSTING.
 
Reply
#12
aticnib Wrote:I'm sorry. I forgot to ask:

Can you direct me to specific case law which includes "ordinary"?

In our case the company's policy required the employee to park in an area which required maneuvering through the company's hazardous operations in order to leave the parking lot and begin his commute. The street was a small public road mainly used by the company's operations and NOT a thoroughfare.

What I have read is that this appears to qualify as a "special risk" exception and also a "but for" exception because he would not have been there "but for" leaving the parking lot (In other words, a member of the general public would not likely have been there in that location leaving that parking lot getting hit head on by the company's truck driver). However, I am trying to find cases specific to California.

You have said (((His))) and (((He))) would not have been there?

Are you saying this wasn't you that was hit, and injured?
Reply's are intended solely for informational purposes. They are based on personal opinions, experience, or research and are "not to be taken as fact or legal advice", otherwise, always consult an attorney or a doctor.
 
Reply
#13
Bad Boy Bad Boy Wrote:
aticnib Wrote:I'm sorry. I forgot to ask:

Can you direct me to specific case law which includes "ordinary"?

In our case the company's policy required the employee to park in an area which required maneuvering through the company's hazardous operations in order to leave the parking lot and begin his commute. The street was a small public road mainly used by the company's operations and NOT a thoroughfare.

What I have read is that this appears to qualify as a "special risk" exception and also a "but for" exception because he would not have been there "but for" leaving the parking lot (In other words, a member of the general public would not likely have been there in that location leaving that parking lot getting hit head on by the company's truck driver). However, I am trying to find cases specific to California.

You have said (((His))) and (((He))) would not have been there?

Are you saying this wasn't you that was hit, and injured?

Correct. I'm asking for someone else.
 
Reply
#14
1171 Wrote:not an atty.
your fact pattern definitely seems to show the hazards were greater for employees then the public at large.
while lexis-nexis is the standard legal research tool, i believe you can do some preliminary free research here:
http://www.appealsboardreporter.com/Subj...Index.aspx
they also have a search feature.
you have to register and you may have to buy a subscription to download detailed case summaries.

Thank you very much. Is lexis-nexis something all attorneys should have? Should I assume his attorney will be able to do the research needed? I wish there was somewhere I could go which listed the Rules for California and the exceptions to such rules.
 
Reply
#15
To be very honest, I'm so very sure if the question you want an answer to, it can be addressed to the attorney, as they would be able to provide such information, and to what is case law on this question. No even if this was a work comp case, Workmens Compensation is a (((NO-FAULT) system. So trying to prove it was a hazard and all, is going to solve what?

Since this person has an attorney, may I ask, what direction is the attorney taking the the case? Meaning Work comp, or Personel Injury?
Reply's are intended solely for informational purposes. They are based on personal opinions, experience, or research and are "not to be taken as fact or legal advice", otherwise, always consult an attorney or a doctor.
 
Reply
#16
yes most firms have a license for lexis-nexis searches

the labor code has all the calif work comp statutes.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawq...b&codebody==

it does not have case law for such things as the going & coming rule as those are court interpretations.
there are legal reference works you can use:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/WC_referenceMaterials.htm

if you are unrepresented you can use the I&A officers for some specific questions
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/IandA.html

my previous link to the appeals board reporter is pretty good - try it before trying others.
Reminder :
........Each state has their own comp system; POST YOUR STATE to get accurate information. Use the search feature to find information from similar questions.
THANKS FOR POSTING.
 
Reply
#17
Bad boy, why is *anyone* here then? Obviously I have my reasons for asking my questions. A better question is: Don't you have anything better to do with your time than dissect my reasons for asking my questions?

1171, thank you for all those links. They will be VERY helpful. I will have plenty to do this weekend. Smile
 
Reply
#18
Bad Boy Bad Boy Wrote:To be very honest, I'm so very sure if the question you want an answer to, it can be addressed to the attorney, as they would be able to provide such information, and to what is case law on this question. No even if this was a work comp case, Workmens Compensation is a (((NO-FAULT) system. So trying to prove it was a hazard and all, is going to solve what?

Since this person has an attorney, may I ask, what direction is the attorney taking the the case? Meaning Work comp, or Personel Injury?

In order for it to be WC it has to be proven that the going and coming rule doesn't apply by use of the exception. This is where the hazard created by the employer comes in.

Every hour you spend talking to an attorney and asking questions costs money in the end. And sometimes personalities clash and sometimes, honestly, people like to be hands-on and do their own research.

If you have helpful information, I would appreciate it. If not, then I don't see the need to persist in this thread.
 
Reply
#19
That's just it, as I was trying to help you and such, but you wont answer the questions. See if the questions were answered, it gives us what need to look up. issues as hazards, coming and going, may need a relation to what your trying to seek. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Now to be honest, the attorney in the case, isn't charging by the hour neither, or by the phone call, or by the question. The attorney gets paid only in the end when a settlement comes into play. There isn't nothing in the attorney Client contract that states they will charge by the phone call, or by the question.


If your trying to open the door for a Liability law suit just say so, as there is information out there.
Reply's are intended solely for informational purposes. They are based on personal opinions, experience, or research and are "not to be taken as fact or legal advice", otherwise, always consult an attorney or a doctor.
 
Reply
#20
I answered the questions. There is a WC case and a PI case. We don't know which way this is going to go. There are pros and cons to both avenues. It is a 2 year old case. Obviously both lawyers are going to tell us to go their route. So we are doing our own investigation to see what the best chances are of winning in either case and what the possible outcome would be in either case. Lawyers don't like to put monetary figures down on the table because then they feel pressured to meet your demands to meet that figure later. Do you understand now? I would much rather have ONE law firm handling BOTH cases and making the decision on which avenue to proceed with, based on chances of success. But this is not the case.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Exclamation Really Need help on Florida OJCC final rule to enforce settlement recoup18 8 1,982 08-18-2018, 11:19 AM
Last Post: 1171
  California. Is there a way to check to see if wc is coming? 9Screws 3 1,937 05-13-2014, 09:54 PM
Last Post: 1171
  Help - how can I force my judge to rule? bodybuilder1958 11 13,186 01-23-2011, 06:45 PM
Last Post: Bummer Knees
  up coming IME grumpyone 15 6,958 09-03-2010, 02:25 PM
Last Post: grumpyone
  What is the rule, regarding comp. checks? jamming47 12 16,900 06-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Last Post: Lilly
  What's the rule? bkoch 6 4,523 03-27-2009, 09:38 AM
Last Post: Lilly
  Coming to an end? jobo99 6 5,389 11-02-2008, 07:19 PM
Last Post: jobo99

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)