Consolidated Fast Freight v. Walker

Decision Date09 May 1938
Docket Number14285.
Citation85 P.2d 720,103 Colo. 347
PartiesCONSOLIDATED FAST FREIGHT et al. v. WALKER.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

As Amended December 27, 1938.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ralph N. Walker against the Consolidated Fast Freight, a corporation, and another for compensation for injuries sustained by plaintiff while unloading a shipment of intrastate freight from one of the named defendant's trucks. An award of the Industrial Commission denying compensation was reversed by the district court, and the defendant bring error.

Affirmed.

BOUCK YOUNG, and KNOUS, JJ., dissenting.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Louis Schiff Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.

Myron H. Burnett, of Denver, for plaintiff in error Consolidated Fast Freight.

G. H. Bradfield, of Greeley, for defendant in error.

Harold Clark Thompson and E. Meyer Rifkin, both of Denver, amici curiae.

HOLLAND Justice.

Error is assigned to a judgment in favor of defendant in error upon his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, '35 C.S.A. c. 97, § 280 et seq., on the ground that the trial court erroneously found that the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction of the claim, and ordered payment, which it had denied by a final award upon a finding that it had no jurisdiction by application to the facts of section 10, of the act, C.S.A. '35, vol. 3, c. 97,§ 289, which is as follows: 'The provisions of this article shall not apply to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce nor to their employees.'

Plaintiff in error, under a certificate of convenience and necessity, issued on application by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, was, on February 6, 1935, operating freight trucks in Colorado between Denver, Greeley, and Fort Collins, and not beyond the Colorado boundary. It had applied for insurance as provided by the act, but at the time of the injury to claimant, February 6, 1935, it was not carrying insurance. Claimant on the date of the injury was a driver of one of its trucks, conveying a load of intrastate freight from Denver to Fort Collins. While unloading this freight at Fort Collins, which was a part of claimant's duties, he slipped on the sidewalk and was injured by a heavy iron I beam which was a part of his load. The injury resulted in a disability to the extent of 50 per cent. of his working capacity. In due time he made claim to the Industrial Commission for compensation, and upon hearing Before a referee of the commission, his claim was allowed, and upon application of plaintiff in error the referee's findings were reviewed and sustained by the Industrial Commission, which, upon a second review, were again sustained. Plaintiff in error filed its action in the district court to set aside the findings and award of the commission, and, upon trial, the court returned the cause to the Industrial Commission with directions to take further evidence and determine whether or not plaintiff in error was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the provisions of section 10, supra, and whether or not the claimant was, at the time of his injury, occupied with work connected with interstate shipments, both in the general course of his employment and his employment at the time of the injury. Thereafter, the Industrial Commission, after taking additional evidence, made its findings to the effect that it had no jurisdiction in the case, vacated all previous awards, and dismissed the cause. In its previous findings and awards the commission had found that plaintiff in error was not insured under the provisions of the law; that it had applied for insurance, but for some reason unknown to the commission, the policy, though issued, was canceled, and because of such application plaintiff in error is estopped to raise the defense that it is an interstate commerce carrier within the meaning of the Compensation Act. On a hearing as directed by the district court, the Industrial Commission, after taking additional testimony, entered its supplemental award to the effect that plaintiff in error was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Compensation Act; that claimant was engaged in work connected with interstate shipments with respect to his employment, but at the time of his accident was engaged in work connected with intrastate shipments; that the plaintiff in error being engaged in intrastate commerce, the Industrial Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter; and that all previous awards of the commission be vacated and claim denied for lack of jurisdiction and evidence.

Upon return of this award to the district court, and thereafter on the issues there joined, the court entered its findings and judgment in the following general effect: That the plaintiff in error at the time of the injury to claimant did not operate a truck outside of the state of Colorado; that the iron I beam in question was a part of a shipment from Denver to Fort Collins and did not originate outside of, or extend beyond, the state of Colorado; that section 10 of the Compensation Act does not apply to this cause; that the supplemental award of the commission by which it found that it had no jurisdiction is erroneous and is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Drake v. Hodges
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1945
    ... ... Sechler v. Pastore, 103 Colo. 139, ... 84 P.2d 61; Consolidated Fast [114 Colo. 15] ... Freight v. Walker, 103 Colo. 347, 85 P.2d 720 ... ...
  • University of Denver v. Nemeth
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1953
    ...purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act other than to protect all workmen, save those specifically excluded. Consolidated Fast Freight v. Walker, 103 Colo. 347, 85 P.2d 720; Drake v. Hodges, 114 Colo. 10, 161 P.2d What we have here said is sufficient to dispose of contentions numbered 1, ......
  • Burns v. Transcon Lines
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • March 15, 1979
    ...and intrastate commerce, coverage depends upon the specific engagement or work at the time involved. Consolidated Fast Freight v. Walker, 103 Colo. 347, 85 P.2d 720 (1938). In Cohen v. Schaetzel, 106 Colo. 266, 103 P.2d 1060 (1940), the employer operated a trucking business between Denver a......
  • People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 27, 1938
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT