Frohlick Crane Service, Inc. v. Mack
| Decision Date | 04 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. C--323,C--323 |
| Citation | 182 Colo. 34,510 P.2d 891 |
| Parties | FROHLICK CRANE SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. Arthur MACK, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Darwin D. Coit, Denver, for petitioner.
Almon & Barsotti, Denver, for respondent.
The plaintiff, Arthur Mack, was employed by the B & L Wrecking Company as a workman on a demolition project. The defendant, Frohlick Crane Service, Inc., contracted with B & L Wrecking Company, who was the general contractor, to furnish a crane and to provide the employees to operate and service the crane. Mack brought suit against Frohlick for injuries which he allegedly suffered as a result of the negligence of the employees of Frohlick in the operation of the crane. He also claimed, and was paid, Workmen's Compensation by the B & L Wrecking Company, through its insurance carrier, the State Compensation Insurance Fund.
The issue before us is whether the trial court properly granted Frohlick's motion for summary judgment dismissing Mack's negligence claim. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Mack v. Frohlick Crane Service, Inc., Colo.App., 505 P.2d 36 (1972). We granted certiorari and now affirm the Court of Appeals.
Our result is predicated upon an interpretation of C.R.S.1963, 81--9--1 and C.R.S.1963, 81--13--8. 1 C.R.S.1963, 81--9--1, provides that an employer who contracts-out part of his work to a subcontractor is deemed to be the employer of the subcontractor and his employees for Workmen's Compensation purposes. C.R.S.1963, 81--13--8, permits an employee to bring suit for job-related injuries against those persons 'not in the same employ.' The trial court, in dismissing Mack's negligence suit against Frohlick, held that Mack was suing his co-employee under the statutory language of C.R.S.1963, 81--9--1, and that such a suit was prohibited by C.R.S.1963, 81--13--8.
The Court of Appeals held that Frohlick was not immune from suit by Mack, because Frohlick was not Mack's employer and had no responsibility to Mack under the Workmen's Compensation law. In short, there was no employer-employee relationship between Frohlick and Mack, and therefore, the Workmen's Compensation Act has no application. We agree with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statute.
We would be overriding the obvious intent of the legislature if we were to interpret the statutory provisions as the trial court did. If we treated Frohlick as Mack's co-employee in this case, we would be exalting form over substance. It is elementary that statutory interpretation must be governed by legislative intent. Johnston v. City of Greenwood Village, Colo., 493 P.2d 651 (1972). No court should interpret a statute in such a manner as to frustrate the intent of the legislature. Dillon & Sons v. Carrington, 169 Colo. 242, 455 P.2d 201 (1969).
The primary purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to afford workmen compensation for job-related injuries, regardless of fault. The statutory scheme grants the employee compensation from the employer, even though the employee may be negligent and even if the employer is not negligent. In return, the employer who is responsible under the Workmen's Compensation Act is granted immunity from common-law claims. However, our Workmen's Compensation Act is not to shield third-party tort-feasors from liability for damages resulting from their negligence. E.g., Wilson v. Smith, 110 Colo. 68, 130 P.2d 1053 (1942). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc.
...is true that the primary purpose of the Compensation Act is to compensate workers for job-related injuries, Frohlick Crane Serv., Inc. v. Mack, 182 Colo. 34, 510 P.2d 891 (1973), and that permitting contribution would not necessarily impede that goal. Yet other concerns are implicated. Ques......
-
Lee v. Colorado Dept. of Health
...regard to fault and to immunize the employer from common law tort claims arising out of such injuries. E.g., Frohlick Crane Service, Inc. v. Mack, 182 Colo. 34, 510 P.2d 891 (1973). These legislative goals could be seriously undermined if a claim for loss of consortium were to be viewed as ......
-
Mizenko v. Electric Motor and Contracting Co., Inc.
...have held that a subcontractor is not in the same employ with an employee of the prime contractor. Frohlick Crane Serv., Inc. v. Mack, 182 Colo. 34, 37-38, 510 P.2d 891, 893 (1973); Parkhill Truck Co. v. Wilson, 190 Okl. 473, 480, 125 P.2d 203, 210 (1942); Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 3......
-
Stewart v. U.S.
...with speedy compensation regardless of fault, the employer is granted immunity from common law claims, Frohlick Crane Service, Inc. v. Mack, 182 Colo. 34, 510 P.2d 891, 893, and in return a vicarious statutory liability is substituted. See generally Thomas v. Farnsworth Chambers Co., 286 F.......
-
A Primer on Workers' Compensation Subrogation
...706 P.2d 1258 (Colo. 1985). 6. See, Krueger v. Merriman Electric, 488 P.2d 288 (Colo.App. 1971); Frohlic Crane Service, Inc. v. Mack, 510 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1973). 7. Buzard v. Super Walls, Inc., 681 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1984). 8. See, Garber v. Franchise Services, 680 P.2d 1345 (Colo. App. 1984); ......
-
Chapter 10 - § 10.4 • STATUTORY RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
...Edwards, 550 P.2d at 860 (citing Krueger v. Merriman Elec., 488 P.2d 228 (Colo. App. 1971), and Frohlick Crane Serv., Inc. v. Mack, 510 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1973)).[168] Id.[169] Doyle v. Mo. Valley Constructors, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 121, 123-24 (D. Colo. 1968).[170] Id. at 125.[171] 29 U.S.C. §§ ......
-
Independent Contractors and the Colorado Workers' Compensation Act-part Ii
...47, 48 (Colo.App. 1987). 15. Finlay v. Storage Technology Corporation, 764 P.2d 62, 64 (Colo. 1988); Frohlick Crane Serv., Inc. v. Mack, 510 P.2d 891, 893 (Colo. 1973). 16. Edwards v. Price, 550 P.2d 856, 860 (Colo. 1976). 17. 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988). 18. Id. at 67. 19. Id. at 65. 20. Id. ......
-
"statutory Employment"�what Kind of Work Is That?
...out farm or ranch work. See CRS § 8-41-401(4). This article does not address these specific provisions. [2] Frohlick Crane Serv. v. Mack, 510 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1973). [3] For clarity and ease of understanding, this article refers to the entity contracting out work as the "general contractor" ......