Hall v. Industrial Com'n
| Decision Date | 04 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | 11216. |
| Parties | HALL v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1925.
Department 2.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Dec. E. W. Hall, employee, opposed by T. W. McMahon employer. Order of Industrial Commission denying compensation was affirmed by the district court, and claimant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Ellis Robinson & Sarchet and John S. Fine, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and John F. Reynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission.
Foster Chine and George A. Trout, both of Denver, for defendant in error McMahon.
This cause is before us upon the review of a judgment of the district court of the city and county of Denver affirming an order of the Industrial Commission. The order, or award, in question, was one whereby the Commission denied compensation to the claimant.
The claimant was an employee whose employer was engaged in the show or carnival business. Claimant's duties were those of an advance agent. The headquarters of the business, and the residence of the employer, were in the state of Kansas. The contract of employment was made in Nebraska, claimant says, and the Commission found it was made in Kansas. In any event, it was not made in Colorado. The Commission denied compensation upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction to grant it, under the facts above stated. The sole question to be determined is the correctness of the ruling on the question of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff in error, claimant before the Commission, points out that certain definitions found in the Workmen's Compensation Act would make it apply to nonresident employers. See section 4382, C. L. 1921, defining 'employer.' Such construction would render many other parts of the act unworkable, such as the enforcement of orders, and the issuance of subpoenas, mentioned in section 4410, C. L. 1921. A situation like this is commented on in Spitzer v. The Annette Rolph, 110 Or. 461, 218 P. 748, 223 P. 253.
Our act has extraterritorial effect, so that where a contract of employment is made in Colorado between citizens of Colorado the employee, if injured in another state in the course of his employment, may recover compensation in this state under our act. Industrial Comm. v. AEtna Life Ins. Co., 64 Colo. 480, 174 P. 589, 3 A.L.R. 1336. Most of the other states have given their Workmen's Compensation Acts extraterritorial effect, in the same way. See Hopkins v. Matchless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford Electric Light Co v. Clapper
...other grounds, The Linseed King, 285 U. S. 502, 52 S. Ct. 450, 76 L. Ed. —. Compensation was similarly denied in Hall v. Industrial Commission, 77 Colo. 338, 339, 235 P. 1073; Hopkins v. Matchless Metal Polish Co., 99 Conn. 457, 464, 121 A. 828; Proper v. Polley, 233 App. Div. 621, 253 N. Y......
-
Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co.
... ... Co., 103 Conn ... 101, 130 A. 70; Krekelberg v. M. A. Floyd Co ... (Minn.), 207 N.W. 193; Hall v. Industrial ... Commission, 77 Colo. 338, 235 P. 1073; Industrial ... Commission v. Aetna Life ... ...
-
De Gray v. Miller Bros. Const. Co.
... ... To Regulate Conduct of Industrial Employment within ... Borders---"Employee"---Sufficiency of Facts To Show ... Jurisdiction of ... Champlin , 91 Conn. 524, 100 ... A. 97, 98, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 512; Harivel v ... Hall-Thompson Co. , 98 Conn. 753, 120 A. 603; ... Pettiti v. T. J. Pardy Construction Co. , ... 103 ... ...
-
Bagnel v. Springfield Sand & Tile Co., 3968.
...Some courts have taken this view. Hopkins v. Matchless Metal Polish Co., 1923, 99 Conn. 457, 121 A. 828; Hall v. Industrial Commission, 1925, 77 Colo. 338, 235 P. 1073; Solomon v. Call, 1932, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467. But it is clear now that this is not a matter of constitutional obligati......