Industrial Com'n of Colo. v. Murphy
Decision Date | 14 February 1938 |
Docket Number | 14280. |
Citation | 76 P.2d 741,102 Colo. 59 |
Parties | INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al. v. MURPHY. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1938.
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Jerry J. Murphy claimant, opposed by the Industrial Commission of Colorado State Compensation Insurance Fund, and Minnesota Mines, Inc. a corporation, employer. An award of the Industrial Commission denying compensation was reversed by the District Court and award made in favor of claimant, and the Industrial Commission, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and employer bring error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Louis Schiff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.
Harold Clark Thompson, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error State Compensation Insurance Fund and Minnesota Mines.
H. Berman and Fred N. Holland, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is a workmen's compensation case. The parties are hereinafter referred to in order as the commission, the fund, the company, and Murphy. The sole question presented is, Did the injury complained of arise out of and in the course of the employment?
The company mines gold about two miles from Empire, which is a short distance above Idaho Springs. It has nothing to sell, no stock to dispose of, nothing to advertise. O'Dell was a stockholder and its secretary and manager, and Gammon, not a stockholder, was assistant treasurer. Murphy, 27 years old, was employed as a sampler and assistant survey man. One of the miners, as spokesman for others, represented to Gammon that the 'boys' would like to have a baseball team to play on Sundays because they were without recreation. Gammon recommended the project to O'Dell, who thought it would 'be a good thing for the morale of the men,' and offered, for the company, to 'match dollar for dollar' on the expense of organization. Action was accordingly taken at a total expense of $305. No further contributions were made nor obligations incurred by the company. Gate receipts of games were applied on expense, and the shortage was covered by contributions. To this end O'Dell personally contributed about $300 and Gammon about $40. The team was known by the company name, but no one was obliged to play or attend the games, and no man was ever employed or discharged because of baseball. Four or five of the players were generally men not employed by the company. On the suggestion of Gammon (who arranged the schedule of games but received no compensation from the company for his baseball activities), acquiresced in by the players, Murphy was acting as manager. August 2, 9, and 16 (Sundays) but few men were working. Murphy worked August 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but not August 7, 8, or 9. On August 9 (Sunday) the team went to Colorado Springs to play. Six only of the players were employees of the company. On such trips the players furnished their own transportation. On this day Murphy took three of them in an automobile belonging to the company, which he borrowed from O'Dell for the purpose. O'Dell, out of his own personal funds, advanced hotel bills in Colorado Springs and gave Murphy money for gasoline. On the return trip the Murphy car collided with another in Vernon canon about 11 p. m., and Murphy was permanently injured. He filed his claim with the commission, whose referee made an award in his favor. This the commission reversed. The district court reversed the commission and ordered an award in favor of Murphy. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted.
There are few conflicts in the evidence and most of those apparent can be reconciled. In any event the commission was at liberty to find the foregoing. If this were all, the inevitable conclusion would be that the district court's judgment was wholly unsupported. Murphy's theory, however, is that his baseball activities were the result of company pressure exerted through O'Dell, but since the latter denied it we must assume the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Noble v. Zimmerman
...as the one by the majority here is ably and succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of Colorado in Industrial Commission v. Murphy, 1938, 102 Colo. 59, 76 P.2d 741, at page 742, 115 A.L.R. 990, as 'It may be regretable that this young man cannot be compensated under the terms of the act, but......
-
Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co.
...998 (App.Ct.1942); Pate v. Plymouth Manufacturing Co., 198 S.C. 159, 17 S.E.2d 146 (Sup.Ct.1941); Industrial Comm. v. Murphy, 102 Colo. 59, 76 P.2d 741, 115 A.L.R. 990 (Sup.Ct.1938). In this connection Larson 'As to company athletic teams, the majority of cases still deny compensation for i......
-
Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.
...418, 424, 44 S.Ct. 153, 154, 68 L.Ed. 366, 370 (1923). Respondent, by directing our attention to Industrial Commission v. Murphy, 102 Colo. 59, 76 P.2d 741, 115 A.L.R. 990 (Sup.Ct.1938), urges in substance that a recognition of any validity to petitioner's claims would serve as a warning to......
-
Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.
...is beyond the compensation statute. Wooten v. Roden, 260 Ala. 606, 71 So.2d 802 (Sup.Ct.1954); Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Murphy, 102 Colo. 59, 76 P.2d 741, 115 A.L.R. 990 (Sup.Ct.1938); Tom Joyce 7 Up Co. v. Layman, 112 Ind.App. 369, 44 N.E.2d 998 (App.Ct.1942); Lawrence v. Ameri......