Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. City of Evansville, Indiana
Decision Date | 02 October 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 10399.,10399. |
Parties | BITUMINOUS CAS. CORP. v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE, INDIANA. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Edmund F. Ortmeyer, Frederick P. Bamberger, William P. Foreman, all of Evansville, Ind., Frank J. Crawford, Frank P. Crawford, Terre Haute, Ind., for appellant.
William T. Fitzgerald, Herman L. McCray, Evansville, Ind., Ruth E. Maier, Nat H. Youngblood, Evansville, Ind., for defendant-appellee.
Before KERNER, DUFFY, and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, a Workmen's Compensation Insurance carrier, filed its complaint for statutory subrogation against defendant, the city of Evansville, Indiana, charging that as a result of the negligence of one of its employees, plaintiff became liable for injuries sustained by an employee of Bower Brothers, under a policy of workmen's compensation insurance issued to that employer. This liability was fixed at $6,741, including payments for medical and hospital care and for temporary total and permanent partial disability, which amount plaintiff was ordered by the Industrial Commission to pay and did pay in lump sum on behalf of the insured employer.
Defendant moved to dismiss the action on three grounds. 1. The complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 2. It did not show compliance with the requirement of 60-day notice of the occurrence of the accident as provided by Indiana statute in the case of claims against a municipal corporation. 3. The action was not commenced within one year after the acceptance of the compensation awarded. The District Court sustained defendant's motion and dismissed the action, and from that judgment the appeal is prosecuted.
Section 48-8001, Burns' Indiana Statutes, in effect at the time the accident here involved occurred, provides as follows:
The complaint nowhere alleged compliance with this statutory requirement of notice. Appellant contends, however, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stone v. District of Columbia
...for the notice. 7 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 53.154 (3d ed. 1950). 8 See also, e.g., Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. City of Evansville, Indiana, 191 F.2d 572, (7 Cir., 1951); City of Louisville v. Verst, 308 Ky. 46, 213 S.W.2d 517, 519 (1948); Rich v. City of Eastport, 110 Me. 537, 87......
-
O'Neil v. City of Parkersburg
...(Tex.Civ.App.1973); and second, upon a finding of a rational basis for the legislative classification. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. The City of Evansville, 191 F.2d 572 (7th Cir. 1951); Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, affirmed on rehearing 138 So. 486 (1931). Inasmu......
-
Boyle v. Burt
...169 N.W.2d 897, and American Auto Ins. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 259 Minn. 294, 107 N.W.2d 320. See also Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. City of Evansville (7 Cir.), 191 F.2d 572, 573--574, and White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 137 N.W.2d For reasons set forth, infra, we are satisfied the applica......
-
Powell v. Brady
...107 N.W.2d 320; See White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 137 N.W.2d 674; Annot., 93 A.L.R.2d 1385. See also, Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. City of Evansville, 7th Cir., 191 F.2d 572. order that the defendant may have full opportunity of investigating: the scene of the accident; the [30 Colo.App.......