> >
Case Name | Aitken v. Pacific Steel Casting Co. | |
---|---|---|
Date | 02/07/2011 | |
Note | Exclusive remedy barred a worker's suit against a borrowing employer after it proved that he was a special employee, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled. | |
Citation | A126395 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 37152011 CA |
Charles J. Aitken v. Pacific Steel Casting Co, No. A126395 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 02/07/2011) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A126395 February 7, 2011 CHARLES J. AITKEN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. PACIFIC STEEL CASTING CO. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. INTRODUCTION Appellant Charles J. Aitken appeals from the trial court's ruling granting respondent Pacific Steel Casting Co. 's motion for summary judgment. (Marsh v. Tilley Steel Co. (1980)26 Cal. 3d 486, 493 (Marsh); Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 168, 175 (Kowalski). )It was Plant Maintenance, and not Pacific Steel, who paid appellant directly. In his deposition, appellant states that he "needed some tools that they didn't have at Pacific Steel .
Download full case here.
Download full case here.