Buckman v. Republic Structural Painting Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1957 |
| Parties | Charles E. BUCKMAN, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC STRUCTURAL PAINTING CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Allen P. Dodd, Jr., George, J. Long, Dodd & Dodd, Louisville, for appellant.
Louis Seelbach, Albert Reutlinger, Louisville, for appellee.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Charles E. Buckman, a resident of Kentucky, was employed by the Republic Structural Painting Corporation, an Ohio company, to paint a bridge located in Jefferson County, Kentucky. He signed a contract with the company agreeing to be bound by the Ohio workmen's compensation law, R.C. § 4123.01 et seq. and agreeing that his right to compensation benefits under the Ohio law would be the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by him in the employment. He fell from the bridge and was injured. Compensation benefits were awarded him under the Ohio law, and while he was continuing to receive compensation payments be brought the present action in Kentucky, seeking to recover common law damages based on negligence of the company causing his injury. The company asserted several defenses, chief of which was the contract agreeing to be bound by the Ohio compensation law. The court gave summary judgment for the company, based on the contract defense. Buckman has appealed, maintaining that the contract violates the public policy and statutes of Kentucky, which, he says, guarantee a remedy under Kentucky law for injuries sustained in this state.
It appears to be well settled among authorities from other jurisdictions, including that Supreme Court of the United States, that the mere fact that an employer and employe are subject to the workmen's compensation law of the state in which the contract of employment was made does not preclude the employe from seeking compensation under the workmen's compensation law of the state in which the injury occurs, if the employe and employer are in fact subject to the latter law. See discussion in Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission, 80 Cal.App.2d 480, 182 P.2d 309. The reasoning is that the state in which the injury occurred, having declared by legislation its policy with respect to compensation for injuries occurring within the state, is not required under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Federal Constitution, Const. art. 4, § 1 to yield to the law of the state in which the contract of employment was made. See Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940.
However, where is nothing in the law of the state of the place of injury to express a public policy requiring the granting of a common law remedy, and the workmen's compensation law of the state in which the contract of employment was made (to which law the employer and employe have subjected themselves) provides that compensation under the law excludes a common law remedy, the employe cannot sue at common law in the state in which the injury occurred. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 52 S.Ct. 571, 76 L.Ed. 1026.
The appellant has not cited to us any case, nor have we discovered any, where the state in which the injury occurred refused to give effect to an express contract, such as we have here, by which the employe agreed to be bound by the compensation law of the state in which the contract of employment was made, and agreed that this should be exclusive of any common law remedy. While perhaps such a contract might conceivably violate public policy of the state in which the injury occurs, we think it would require a strong, clear expression of public policy to overcome the contract.
Our problem, then, is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAvoy v. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Civ. No. 861.
...look to the law of Louisiana to determine whether this action by the plaintiff should be entertained. See Buckman v. Republic Structural Painting Corporation, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 855; and Employer's Liability Corporation v. Webb, 283 Ky. 115, 140 S.W.2d Assuming for the moment that, as the defe......
-
Harris Corp. v. Comair, Inc.
...Indiana concerning vehicles licensed and garaged in Indiana were to be determined by Indiana law. See also Buckman v. Republic Structural Painting Corp., 302 S.W.2d 855 (Ky.1957). Harris argues that a very recent decision of the Kentucky court, Breeding, mandates a different decision. We ca......
-
Industrial Track Builders of America v. LeMaster
...agreement under KRS 342.045 had it been filed with and approved by the Kentucky Board. The observation in Buckman v. Republic Structural Painting Corp., Ky., 302 S.W.2d 855 (1957), that 'the mere fact that an employer and employe are subject to the workmen's compensation law of the state in......
-
Ison v. Mark Pennington and Capitol Tunneling, Inc., No. 2006-CA-001773-MR (Ky. App. 7/27/2007)
...(Ky. 1991). In its order granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment, the circuit court relied on Buckman v. Republic Structural Painting Corp., 302 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Ky. 1957). We agree with the circuit court that Buckman is controlling in this case. Buckman, a Kentucky citizen empl......