How have courts interpreted section 3601(a)(1)(2)(3) of the California Industrial Accident Prevention Act?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Brittell v. Young, 153 Cal.Rptr. 387, 90 Cal.App.3d 400 (Cal. App. 1979):

In reaching its conclusion, the Vellis court observed that section 3601 as amended "is a recognition that industrial accidents are a matter of enterprise liability" and stated: "This section eliminates the former rights of an employer for subrogation against a negligent employee causing injuries. It also eliminates actions by the employee against a co-employee except in the specific instances provided in section 3601(, subdivision) (a)(1)(2)(3). Exceptions to the plain wording of the statute should clearly be indicated in either the pleadings or declarations. To rule otherwise would place the risk of loss on fellow employees contrary to the intent of the statute." (Vellis v. Albertson, supra, 267 Cal.App.2d 285, 291, 72 Cal.Rptr. 841, 846.)

Other Questions


How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of section 3333.4 of the California Vehicle Accident Prevention Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1018 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant makes a statement in open court that authorizes or adopts a motion to withdraw his plea? (California, United States of America)
How has section 667.5(b) of the California Criminal Code been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)
How has section 69894.1 of the California Constitution been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)
Is an employer's claim for reimbursement under section 3852 of the California Motor Vehicle Accident and Accident Compensation Act limited to recovery for damages proximately caused by the accident? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the provisions of Proposition 213 of the California Civil Code 3333.4 of the Vehicle Accident Prevention Act to limit damages in a product liability claim? (California, United States of America)
How has section 245 of the California Vehicle Accident Act been interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)
Does the California Supreme Court have any power or authority to interpret a section of the California Penal Code that is ambiguous and ambiguous? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 998 of the California Vehicle Accident Compensation Act when a plaintiff has made a "token or nominal" offer of settlement? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.