Chandler v. Industrial Commission of Utah

• Decision Date: 07 November 1919
• Docket Number: 3395
• Citation: 55 Utah 213,184 P. 1020
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: CHANDLER v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al

184 P. 1020

55 Utah 213

CHANDLER v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al

No. 3395

Supreme Court of Utah

November 7, 1919

Appeal from District Court of Weber County, Second District; A. W Agee, Judge.

Proceedings for compensation under the Employers' Liability Act by Emma Chandler opposed by A. M. Miller and the AEtna Life Insurance Company. Claimant's application was denied, and she commenced proceedings in the district court against the Industrial Commission, Miller, and the Insurance Company.

Judgment dismissing action, and claimant appeals.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

Chez &amp Barker, of Ogden, for appellant.

De Vine, Stine & Gwilliams and J. D. Murphy, all of Ogden, for respondents.

FRICK J. CORFMAN, C. J., WEBER, GIDEON, and THURMAN, JJ., concur.

OPINION

FRICK, J.

The plaintiff made application to the Industrial Commission of this state under the Employers' Liability Act of this state to recover compensation for the death of her husband, which occurred as hereinafter stated. The Industrial Commission denied her application for the reasons hereinafter appearing, and, pursuant to the provisions of the act aforesaid, she commenced this proceeding in the district court of Weber county.

In her complaint, after stating the necessary jurisdictional facts and matters of inducement, she alleged:

"That on the 26th day of January, 1918, at Ogden, Utah, one George C. Chandler was engaged in the employ of A. M. Miller. That the said A. M. Miller was on said date conducting and operating a meat and grocery store in said city, doing business under the name and style of 'Washington Market.' That on said date, and at the said time and place, the said A. M. Miller, in the conduct and operation of said business, employed more than four persons, to wit, about forty persons, and had elected to become and was subject to the provisions of chapter 100 of the Laws of Utah of 1917, an act passed by the Legislature of the state of Utah on March 8, 1917, creating the Industrial Commission of Utah, and among other things establishing rates of compensation for personal injuries or death sustained by employes in the course of employment, and providing methods of insuring the payment of such compensation.

"That the duties of the said George C. Chandler required him to deliver meat and groceries in the city of Ogden, Utah, with and without an automobile, and that he was on the date and at the time and place herein mentioned furnished an automobile by his employer, the said A. M. Miller, for use in making such deliveries, which were made with an automobile, and that the hours of his said employment were from seven o'clock a. m. until 6 o'clock P. M.; that is to say, he was required to commence his said employment at seven o'clock A. M. and continue until 6 o'clock P. M. That the certain automobile which was furnished to him by his said employer for use in making such deliveries which were made with an automobile was kept in a garage at the rear of the residence of his said employer, A. M. Miller, at 764 Twenty-Fifth street, Ogden, Utah. That the place of business of the said A. M. Miller was situated at 2472 Washington avenue, Ogden, Utah. That the place of residence of said George C. Chandler was in the rear of Twenty-Seventh street between Jefferson and Adams avenues, Ogden, Utah. That in the course of his said employment the duties of the said George C. Chandler required him to go from his family residence each morning to said garage, and get said automobile, and drive it down to the said place of business of the said A. M. Miller, and to use it throughout the day in making such deliveries and to return it to the said garage at night after his day's work was finished. That when he was unable to make all the deliveries of the day he would bring with him to his home such undelivered packages and make deliveries of them the following morning on his way to his work.

"That on the morning of January 26, 1918, at about 7:20 o'clock, while the said George C. Chandler was on his way from his place of residence to the said garage to get said automobile and drive it down to his employer's said place of business to begin making the daily deliveries which he was required to make as hereinbefore alleged, and while making delivery of meat for his employer which was undelivered the evening before, and without fault on his part, he was attacked and bitten in his hand by a dog known as the Jefferson Avenue dog. That after having his wound dressed he proceeded to his daily work, and worked steadily on each and every work day thereafter until on or about the 22d day of March, 1918, when he became violently sick, and was removed to a hospital, where he died on or about the 25th day of March, 1918, a violent death from hydrophobia, caused by the dog bite received on January 26, 1918, as hereinbefore alleged."

She also made the necessary allegations respecting the age, condition of health, etc., of the deceased and the dependency of herself and her three minor children, ranging in age from twelve to three years, etc., and prayed for judgment according to the provisions of the act.

The defendants demurred to the complaint upon several grounds. The only ground that is material here, however, is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The district court sustained the demurrer upon that ground, and judgment dismissing the action was duly entered, from which the plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff's counsel insist that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Our statute (Comp. Laws Utah 1917, section 3122) allows compensation to every employe coming within the provisions of the act who is "injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." In view of the facts alleged in the complaint, all of which are admitted by the demurrer, the district court held that, while the deceased was injured by an accident occurring in the course of, yet he was not injured by an accident arising out of, his employment. Whether a particular injury is occasioned by an accident arising out of the employment may present a more or less perplexing question, and with respect to which reasonable men may well differ. Indeed, that is the difficult question in this case; and we fully appreciate the fact that the decisions of the courts are not unanimous upon that question. As is well said by Mr. Van Doren in referring to the Workmen's Compensation Act in his Workmen's Compensation, page 43:

"The extremely liberal construction of the courts (of the act) has, as we have seen, made possible a recovery of compensation by the injured employe in a large proportion of the cases."

We are also reminded that our statute (Comp. Laws Utah 1917, section 5839) requires that the statutes of this state are to be "liberally construed with a view to effect the objects of the statutes and to promote justice."

Upon the question that the Employers' Liability Act should be liberally construed and so as to effectuate its purposes, all courts agree. In re Ayers (Ind. App.) 118 N.E. 386. That doctrine applies...