Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43652,43652 |
| Citation | 392 P.2d 942,193 Kan. 201 |
| Parties | Olive BINGHAM, Appellee, v. HILLCREST BOWL, INC., a Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In an action brought in the name of an injured workman against a third party tort feasor more than one but less than two years from date of her injury, the amended petition is examined and held to state a good cause of action under G.S.1961 Supp. 44-504, where it alleges receipt by the injured workman of workmen's compensation payments and that the action is brought for her benefit and for the benefit of her employer and its insurance carrier as their interests appear.
Jerry W. Hannah, Topeka, argued the cause, and Clayton M. Davis and Mark L. Bennett, Topeka, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
John A. Emerson, Lawrence, argued the cause, and Richard A. Barber and Fred N. Six, Lawrence, were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendant from an order overruling its demurrer to the plaintiff's amended petition.
So far as here need be noted, the amended petition alleges that on May 6, 1960, (more than a year prior to the filing of this action) the plaintiff, an employee of Joy'O, Inc., was injured as a result of the defendant's negligence; that under an award of the Workmen's Compensation Director plaintiff was paid compensation by her employer and its insurance carrier who thereby became subrogated to the extent of their payments, and both they and plaintiff have an interest in this action; and that 'this action is brought in the name of Olive Bingham for her benefit and for the benefit of Joy'O, Inc. and Royal Indemnity Company (the insurance carrier), as their interests appear under the statutory assignment provisions of G.S.1949, 44-504 as amended.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The petition concludes with a prayer that plaintiff, Joy'O and Royal Indemnity have judgment against the defendant.
G.S.1961 Supp. 44-504, so far as material to the present action, provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foveaux v. Smith
...placed thereon by the Kansas Supreme Court. See Klein v. Wells, 194 Kan. 528, 538, 400 P.2d 1002 (1965); Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc., 193 Kan. 201, 202, 392 P.2d 942 (1964). The issue on appeal in many of the cases involves the correctness of allowing an amendment to show that the actio......
-
McCullough v. Wilson, 115,067
..., 201 Kan. 81, 86-87, 439 P.2d 146 (1968) ; Klein v. Wells , 194 Kan. 528, 537-38, 400 P.2d 1002 (1965) ; Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc. , 193 Kan. 201, 201-02, 392 P.2d 942 (1964) ; Jordan v. Lacey , 189 Kan. 169, 171, 368 P.2d 34 (1962) ; Lady v. Ketchum , 186 Kan. 614, 620-21, 352 P.2d ......
-
Thomas v. Heinrich Equipment Corp.
...of his employer and compensation carrier. See, e.g., Klein v. Wells, 194 Kan. 528, 538, 400 P.2d 1002 (1965); Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc., 193 Kan. 201-202, 392 P.2d 942 (1964); Sundgren v. Topeka Transportation Co., 178 Kan. 83, 88, 283 P.2d 444 (1955). See also, Hedges v. Fischbach & ......
-
Baird v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
...of his employer and compensation carrier. See, e.g., Klein v. Wells, 194 Kan. 528, 538, 400 P.2d 1002 (1965); Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc., 193 Kan. 201-202, 392 P.2d 942 (1964); Sundgren v. Topeka Transportation Co., 178 Kan. 83, 88, 283 P.2d 444 (1955). See also, Hedges v. Fischbach & ......