# Graf v. Montecito County Water District

> California Supreme Court · July 2, 1934 · 1 Cal. 2d 222

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559640

## Case

- **Full name:** GEORGE GRAF, Appellant, v. MONTECITO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (An Incorporated County Water District), Respondent; CURTIS PAYTON, Appellant, v. MONTECITO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (An Incorporated County Water District), Respondent; EDWARD W. SANDELL, Appellant, v. MONTECITO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (An Incorporated County Water District), Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 2, 1934
- **Citations:** 1 Cal. 2d 222; 34 P.2d 138; 1934 Cal. LEXIS 352
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shenk
- **Judges:** Shenk
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559640

## Opinion text

SHENK, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. It appeared by both pleading and proof on behalf of the plaintiffs that as a part of the working rules and contracts of employment the defendant water district permitted, and the circumstances of location of work and hours of employment required, the use of the defendant’s train as a means of access to and from lodgings provided by the employer. The railroad is not a common carrier and the passage was free of charge. The trial court applied the “premises” rule approved by this court in State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 28 [ 227 Pac. 168 ], and numerous other cases to like effect. The judgment has been reversed on the theory of the “going and coming” rule notwithstanding the showing, clear to my mind, that the “premises” rule should apply to the facts appearing in the record.
Rehearing denied.
Shenk, J., and Preston, J., voted for a rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559640. Public record. Not legal advice.