Cuthbertson v. Union Pacific Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1936
• Docket Number: 1967
• Citation: 62 P.2d 311,50 Wyo. 441
• Parties: CUTHBERTSON, ET AL. v. UNION PACIFIC COAL COMPANY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

62 P.2d 311

50 Wyo. 441

CUTHBERTSON, ET AL. v. UNION PACIFIC COAL COMPANY

No. 1967

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 24, 1936

RESERVED questions from the District Court, Sweetwater County; V. J. TIDBALL, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act of James Cuthbertson and another, parents of Andrew Charles Cuthbertson, an employee of the Union Pacific Coal Company at Winton Wyoming, opposed by the Union Pacific Coal Company at Winton Wyoming, employer, wherein the district court reserved certain questions for the Supreme Court.

For the employer and in support of the demurrer, there were briefs by A. L. Taliaferro and T. S. Taliaferro, Jr. of Rock Springs and John U. Loomis of Cheyenne and oral argument by T. S Taliaferro, Jr.

The reserved questions involved the validity of certain statutes pertaining to the Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 124-120 R. S.; Chapter 100, Laws 1935; Chapter 129, Laws 1933. Neither parent may be "the dependent family" of the workman. Article 10, Section 4 Constitution; Section 124-106-7 R. S. as amended by Chapter 100, Laws 1935, paragraph (j). The said paragraph is in conflict with the above constitutional provisions. The statute discriminates in favor of "alien" parents, living outside of the United States, and against parents who are citizens of the United States, residing outside of the United States. Moreover the paragraph authorizes an award to the father of a female decedent, when not an invalid, while paragraph (1), subdivision (4) of the act denies the husband of a female decedent an award unless "an invalid," and is therefore class legislation, forbidden by Section 14, Article 1, and Section 27, Article 3 of the State Constitution. The paragraph has been altered and amended several times. It was changed in 1925 to provide for donations to resident parents, whether of the family of decedent or not, also to discriminate against parents who are citizens of the United States living abroad; also to place non-resident alien parents in a more favorable position than parents--citizens of the United States--who live abroad. The original Act, Chapter 124, Laws 1915, page 183 provided benefits for parents who were dependents, irrespective of residence. Laws 1917, Chapter 89, page 68; Laws 1919, Chapter 117, page 155, and Laws 1921, Chapter 138, page 200 made other changes, but it was in 1923 that the legislature took its first step away from the Constitution, which was followed in 1925 by a step in absolute defiance of the Constitution. Subsequent amendments continued the same policy. The act of 1915, defining dependents, provided compensation for members of the workman's family dependent upon him for support at the time of the injury. Chapter 100, Laws 1935, page 136 further amended the act by departures from the Constitutional Mandate. In Wyoming, the words, "dependent families," have both constitutional and statutory meaning, and differ in their wording from other jurisdictions. Attention is called to provisions in fifty-six states of the Union on this subject. They are set out in the brief for purposes of comparison. The legislature in Wyoming can neither deny compensation to the dependent family of a workman, wherever that family may reside, nor can it give gratuities out of the funds of an employer, to those who are not dependent families of the deceased workman, for the reason that in the one case the Wyoming Constitution demands it, and in the other case, the Wyoming Constitution forbids it. The Oklahoma statute deals entirely with injuries, not resulting in death, and provides no awards for injuries resulting in death. Lohoma Oil Company v. Comm., (Okla.) 175 P. 836; Rounds v. Commission, (Okla.) 11 P.2d 479; Park Hill Company v. Emery, (Okla.) 27 P.2d 333. Variations will be noted in the statutes of other states, some influenced by constitutional provisions, while others are not. Chapter 100, Laws 1935, defines dependent families as members dependent upon the workman at the time of injury. We also cite decisions from each of the states defining the term "family." Paragraph 5, supra, violates the Constitution in not requiring the parent to be a member of the workman's family, or dependent upon the decedent (except as to non-resident aliens). The paragraph is not severable. The original act of 1915 was constitutional. The act of 1925 departed from the Constitution. The act of 1929 required parents, who were citizens of the United States, to live within the United States, before they could be compensable, while aliens, who are non-residents, are made compensable. The court is without power to remodel the act and restore the law as it was before 1925. Brown v. Clark, (Wyo.) 34 P.2d 21; McFarlane v. City of Cheyenne, (Wyo.) 42 P.2d 413, illustrates the principle. In seeking the legislative intent, the presumption is against any mutilation of a statute. Riccio v. Hoboken, 69 N.J.L. 649. Paragraph 5 of the act of 1935 was improvidently passed, in that it is inseverable, unconstitutional and void. De Niasi v. Normandy Water Company, (N. J.) 234 F. 228; Vietti v. Fuel Co., (Kans.) 197 P. 881; Madonna v. Corporation, 28 F.2d 710; Liberato v. Boyer, (U.S.) 70 L.Ed. 719; Frasco v. Company, (Conn.) 116 A. 189. Our Constitution requires all laws of a general nature to have uniform operation. Paragraph 5 violates the above provision. Our Constitution requires that where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted. Article 3, Section 27, Constitution. We protest that paragraph 5 is "special" in reference to compensation awards, and violates the above provision of the State Constitution.

For the claimants, there was a brief by Ray E. Lee, Attorney General; Thos. F. Shea, Deputy Attorney General; William C. Snow, Assistant Attorney General, and Bard Ferrall, all of Cheyenne, and oral argument by Mr. Ferrall.

Counsel for the employer urges that Section 5, Chapter 100, Laws 1935, amending Section 124-120, W. R. S. 1931, as amended by Chapter 129, Laws 1933, violates Article X, Section 4 of the State Constitution, in defining dependent families; also in denying compensation to dependent parents of a deceased workman, they being citizens of the United States and members of his family, but living in Canada, or outside of the territorial limits of the United States; also that the paragraph discriminates in favor of alien parents, living outside of the United States, and against parents who are citizens of the United States, living outside thereof; also in authorizing award to the father of a female decedent, when not an invalid, when paragraph (1), subdivision (4) of the act, denies the husband of a female decedent an award, unless an invalid, and is therefore class legislation, forbidden by Section 14, Article 1, and Section 27, Article 3 of the State Constitution. The argument attempts to show that the legislatures of the past ten years have deliberately and intentionally passed illegal statutes and expressions of sympathy for the plight of alien and non-resident parents. Brief of counsel covers a wide range of discussion in relation to the compensation acts of various states on this subject. The rule is that it must appear that the statute is unconstitutional as to the person attacking it. Salt Creek Transp. Co. v. Public Service Comm., 37 Wyo. 488. To avoid that rule, the employer maintains the paragraph is not severable and that the rule which should be applied is that stated in McFarland v. City of Cheyenne, (Wyo.) 42 P.2d 413. A state may grant privileges to its own citizens. 6 R. C. L. 282. The fact that certain next of kin receive no compensation is immaterial. Gregutis v. Waclark Wire Works, (N. J.) 92 A. 354. If one part of the paragraph is unconstitutional, the other parts are not affected. Zancanelli v. Coal & Coke Company, (Wyo.) 173 P. 981; Middleton v. Light Company, 249 U.S. 152; Ideal Bakery v. Schryver, 43 Wyo. 108; McFarland v. City, supra. The court will not lightly interfere with enactments of the legislature on compensation matters. 71 C. J. 256, 283. The point as to residence of dependents cannot be raised by the employer. State v. High School, (Wyo.) 5 P.2d 255; Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, (Cal.) 177 P. 848; Company v. Commonwealth of Penn., 232 U.S. 531; Food Company v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540; 59 C. J. 995; Koprowski v. Coal Company, 49 P.2d 61; McConnell v. Murphy Bros., 45 Wyo. 289; Company v. Matthews, (Ariz.) 180 P. 159. A statute may be limited to avoid a conflict with the Constitution. Brown v. Clark, 34 P.2d 21. It is respectfully submitted that the answers to questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 should be "no" and that answer to question 4 should be "yes."

A. L. Taliaferro, T. S. Taliaferro, Jr. and John U. Loomis in reply.

The case of Salt Creek Company v. Public Service, 37 Wyo. 488, lends no argument for the case at bar, in that the Union Pacific Coal Company claims that said paragraph 5 (d) is unconstitutional, as to its rights, and in its most minor details, affects the Union Pacific Coal Company. While it is true that a state may grant privileges to its own citizens this statute is unconstitutional, because it seeks to take away the privileges of its own citizens, secured to them by the Constitution. The employer has a right to complain when the act denies awards to citizens of the United States. Article 10, Section 4, Constitution. The cases of Zancanelli v. Central Coal and Coke Company, 25 Wyo. 311, and Middleton v. Texas Company, 249 U.S. 152, are not germane to the questions before the court in this case. The McFarland case cited by counsel is not in point, nor is the text of 71 C. J. 301 cited in their brief. Every award for injuries affects the employer directly. In view of the provisions of Chapter 129, Laws 1933, relating to...