Coddington v. City of Lewiston
Decision Date | 31 July 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 11453,11453 |
Citation | 525 P.2d 330,96 Idaho 135 |
Parties | Geraldine CODDINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LEWISTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Leslie T. McCarthy, Lewiston, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel W. O'Connell of Ware, Stellmon & O'Connell, Lewiston, for defendant-respondent.
This is an action for loss of consortium. On March 21, 1971, the plaintiff-appellant's husband, Earl Coddington was injured when a trench he was excavating caved in and buried him. At the time of the accident, Earl Coddington was employed by the defendant-respondent, the City of Lewiston, and he received workmen's compensation benefits for his injuries. On September 8, 1972, the appellant lodged a notice of claim with Lewiston, and on October 3, 1972, the appellant filed an action alleging that as a result of the accident and injuries to her husband, she had suffered a loss of consortium.
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appellant's complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 1 Briefs were filed by both parties on the issues of whether the appellant's claim was timely and whether the Workmen's Compensation Act barred the appellant's complaint. The trial court ordered the complaint dismissed and entered a judgment for the respondent. The procedure of treating a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or a I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion accompanied by briefs as a motion for summary judgment was described in the case of Stewart v. Arrington Construction Co.:
2
Although the trial court did not state that it was treating the respondent's motion as a motion for summary judgment, in effect that is the result. This appeal is from the judgment entered by the trial court.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that her claim was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Summers v. Western Idaho Potato Processing Company, it was held that 'actions based upon injuries otherwise remediable by common law action, which are not covered under the Idaho Workmen's Compensation scheme, are not abrogated by the Workmen's Compensation statutes.' 3
The injuries covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act are described in I.C. § 72-201:
'If a workman receives personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of any employment covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law his employer or the surety shall pay compensation in the amounts and to the person or persons hereinafter specified.
'Accident,' as used in this law, means an unexpected, undesigned, and unlooked for mishap, or untoward event, happening suddenly and connected with the industry in which it occurs, and which can be definitely located as to time when and place where it occurred, causing an injury, as defined in this law.
The terms 'injury' and 'personal injury,' as the same are used in this law, shall be construed to include only an injury caused by an accident, as above defined, which results in violence to the physical structure of the body. The said terms shall in no case be construed to include an occupational disease in any form and only such non-occupational diseases as result directly from an injury.' 4
The appellant contends that since the loss of consortium does not involve 'violence to the physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Products, Inc.
...of its derivative nature, is barred by the exclusive remedies required by the workmen's compensation statutes. Coddington v. City of Lewiston, 96 Idaho 135, 525 P.2d 330 (1974). This rule is consistent with the law in the analogous situation of an heir's action for wrongful death, in which ......
-
Thompson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...to a spouse." Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Products, Inc., 107 Idaho 389, 394, 690 P.2d 324, 329 (1984). See also Coddington v. City of Lewiston, 96 Idaho 135, 525 P.2d 330 (1974). In Runcorn we were urged to adopt the view of Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal.3d 382, 115 Cal.Rptr. 76......
-
Kelly v. TRC Fabrication, LLC
...the worker's compensation system, Nancy's derivative claim of loss of consortium necessarily failed. (Citing Coddington v. City of Lewiston , 96 Idaho 135, 525 P.2d 330 (1974) for this proposition.)The Kellys responded, arguing that immunity under the Idaho Worker's Compensation Act only ap......
-
Mardian Const. Co. v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 1
...1299, 1 L.Ed.2d 1429 (1957); Anderson v. Savannah Machine & Foundry Co., 96 Ga.App. 621, 100 S.E.2d 621 (1957); Coddington v. City of Lewiston, 96 Idaho 135, 525 P.2d 330 (1974); Bloemer v. Square D. Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 371, 290 N.E.2d 699 (1972); Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., 251 Iowa......