Guerrieri v. Industrial Ins. Commission

• Decision Date: 03 March 1915
• Docket Number: 12262.
• Citation: 146 P. 608,84 Wash. 266
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GUERRIERI v. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION.

146 P. 608

84 Wash. 266

GUERRIERI v. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION.

No. 12262.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 3, 1915

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. Stanley Webster, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Melville Guerrieri against the Industrial Insurance Commission. From a judgment sustaining an order of the Commission rejecting a claim for injuries, the claimant appeals. Affirmed.

Brady &amp Rummens and Clise & Poe, all of Seattle, for appellant.

W. V Tanner and John M. Wilson, both of Olympia, for respondent.

CHADWICK J.

The only question raised by this appeal is whether one who is engaged in operating a passenger and freight elevator of lift in a mercantile establishment is a workman engaged in an extrahazardous employment and entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law (chapter 74, session Laws 1911). It is the holding of the Industrial Insurance Commission and of the Attorney General that operators of elevators are not within the terms of the law. It was so held by the court below.

Section 2 of the act classifies employments 'inherently constantly dangerous,' and therefore 'extrahazardous,' as follows:

'Factories, mills and workshops where machinery is used printing, electrotyping, photoengraving and stereotyping plants where machinery is used; foundries, blast furnaces, mines, wells, gas works, waterworks, reduction works, breweries, elevators, wharves, docks, dredges, smelters, powder works; laundries operated by power; quarries; engineering works; logging, lumbering and ship building operations; logging, street and interurban railroads; buildings being constructed, repaired, moved or demolished; telegraph, telephone, electric light or power plants or lines, steam heating or power plants, steamboats, tugs, ferries and railroads.'

It is the contention of appellant that the word 'elevators,' which we have italicized, means freight and passenger elevators.

When tested by the ordinary rules of statutory construction, we think it is clear that this is not so. The context of the section--the setting of the word--indicates a legislative intent to cover classes of business rather than particular pieces or kinds of machinery. Thus: 'factories, mills, * * * breweries, elevators, wharves, docks, * * * etc.'

Section 3 defines certain terms and classes of business. 'Mill' means 'any plant, premises, room or place where machinery is used, etc., * * * including elevators, warehouses and bunkers.'

Section 4 schedules the rates to be paid. No schedule specifically covers passenger or freight elevators. In the same section under the subhead 'Construction Work'...