Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., No. 473S66
| Docket Nº | No. 473S66 |
| Citation | 63 A.L.R.3d 973, 297 N.E.2d 425, 260 Ind. 249 |
| Case Date | May 01, 1973 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 425
63 A.L.R.3d 973
v.
CENTRAL INDIANA GAS COMPANY, Appellee.
Page 426
George K. Hughel, Anderson, for appellant.
Kiley, Osborn, Kiley & Harker, David L. Kiley, Albert C. Harker, Marion, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
Plaintiff-employee brought an action against her former employer seeking actual and punitive damages for retaliatory discharge. The Henry Circuit Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to TR. 12(B)(6) IC 1971, 34--5--1--1 (failure to state a [260 Ind. 250] claim upon which relief can be granted). The plaintiff appealed. The First District Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Presiding Judge Robertson, affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
The complaint sets out the following facts:
Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, injured her arm while working. Defendant and their insurer paid her hospital and medical expenses, as well as her full salary, during the four months she was unable to work. However, they did not inform her of further benefits that might have been available. When she did return to the job she performed capably. Approximately 19 months after the injury, defendant and its insurer were notified of a 30 per cent loss in the use of her arm. Although hesitant to file a claim for fear of losing her job she did so, and received a settlement for her injury. About one month later she was discharged from her employment without reason being given.
Page 427
Plaintiff prayed for $45,000 in actual damages, and:
'. . . punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $135,000.00 which is triple the amount of her actual damages because of the Defendant's intentional acts in defiance of the legislative intent of the Workmen's Compensation Laws which if allowed to persist would effectively thwart the public policy of the State of Indiana.'
Workmen's compensation acts are designed to afford injured workers 'an expeditious remedy both adequate and certain, and independent of any negligence on their part or on the part of the employer' 1 Prior to workmen's compensation, workers were faced with the harshness of the common law. The employee's only remedy was an action in tort against the employer--actions which were rarely successful. 2 This lack of success is attributed to the common law defenses of assumption of risk, contributory negligence and the fellow servant rule which were accorded inordinate deference.
[260 Ind. 251] Workmen's compensation statutes are in derogation of the common law and provide, for those covered, an exclusive remedy for injuries sustained 'in the course of' and 'arising out of' one's employment. The basic policy behind such legislation is to shift the economic burden for employment connected injuries from the employee to the employer.
'One of the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to transfer from the worker to the industry in which he is employed and ultimately to the consuming public a greater portion of economic loss due to industrial accidents and injuries.' (authorities omitted)
Mann et al. v. Schnarr (1950), 228 Ind. 654, 667, 95 N.E.2d 138, 143. See also: Guevara v. Inland Steel Co. (1949), 120 Ind.App. 47, 88 N.E.2d 398; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hightower (1939), 107 Ind.App. 46, 22 N.E.2d 875.
Workmen's compensation is for the benefit of the employee. Hoffman v. Brooks Const. Co. (1942), 220 Ind. 150, 41 N.E.2d 613. Accordingly, it is well-established that the Act 3 be liberally construed in favor of the employee so as to not negate the Act's humane purposes. Goldstone v. Kozma (1971), Ind.App., 274 N.E.2d 304; Prater v. Indiana Briquetting Corp. (1969), 253 Ind. 83, 251 N.E.2d 810.
The Act creates a duty in the employer to compensate employees for work-related injuries (through insurance) and a right in the employee to receive such compensation. But in order for the goals of the Act to be realized and for public policy to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...Nees v. Hocks (1975) 272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (discharge for serving on jury); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1973) 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (discharge for filing worker's compensation claim); Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont (W.Va.1978) 246 S.E.2d 270 (discharge for report......
-
Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont, Nos. 15088
...Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978) (wrongful discharge); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 63 A.L.R.3d 973 (1973) (retaliatory discharge); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976) (retaliator......
-
Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., No. WD
...Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 562-65, 384 N.E.2d 353, 356-59 (1979); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 Cases holding that a worker discharged for filing a claim has no cause of action include: Bottijliso v. Hutchison Fruit Co.......
-
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.
...of Teamsters, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 344 P.2d 25 (1959); (2) file a workmen's compensation claim; Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 252, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 648-49, 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597, 60......
-
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...Nees v. Hocks (1975) 272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (discharge for serving on jury); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1973) 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (discharge for filing worker's compensation claim); Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont (W.Va.1978) 246 S.E.2d 270 (discharge for report......
-
Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont, Nos. 15088
...Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978) (wrongful discharge); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 63 A.L.R.3d 973 (1973) (retaliatory discharge); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976) (retaliator......
-
Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., No. WD
...Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 562-65, 384 N.E.2d 353, 356-59 (1979); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 Cases holding that a worker discharged for filing a claim has no cause of action include: Bottijliso v. Hutchison Fruit Co.......
-
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.
...of Teamsters, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 344 P.2d 25 (1959); (2) file a workmen's compensation claim; Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 252, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 648-49, 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597, 60......