Industrial Com'n of Colo. v. Pueblo Auto Co.

• Citation: 207 P. 479,71 Colo. 424
• Decision Date: 05 June 1922
• Docket Number: 10036.
• Parties: INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al. v. PUEBLOD AUTO CO. et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

207 P. 479

71 Colo. 424

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al. v. PUEBLOD AUTO CO. et al.

No. 10036.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 5, 1922

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.

Proceeding by Annetta N. Parks, for herself and others, against the Pueblo Auto Company, employer, and the Ocean Accident &amp Guarantee Corporation, Limited, insurer, before the Industrial Commission for an award. From judgment vacating the award, the Industrial Commission and claimants bring error.

Reversed with directions.

Denison and Burke, JJ., dissenting.

Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and John S. Fine Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.

Devine, Preston & Storer, of Pueblo, for other plaintiffs in error.

Fred W. Varney, of Denver, and Charles W. O'Donnell, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error.

Charles B. Hughes, L. E. Langdon, and John T. Barbrick, all of Pueblo, amici curiae.

TELLER J.

This case is before us on error to a judgment of the district court vacating the findings and award of the Industrial Commission. The award was in favor of the claimant, Annetta M. Parks, the widow, and one of the dependents of Elton C. Parks, deceased.

On April 11, 1919, Parks was in the employ of the Pueblo Auto Company as a salesman. On said day Parks went in an automobile into the country for the purpose of selling an automobile. On the trip he effected a sale to one Hunter, who started in the car with Parks on his return to Pueblo.

On the road they invited two brothers, named Bosco, to ride with them. A little later, while on the road, one of the Boscoes shot and killed Parks. It appears that the killing was for the purpose of obtaining the automobile in which the parties were riding.

It is conceded that Parks was killed while in the course of his employment, but the district court held that the killing did not arise out of his employment. The correctness of that decision is to be determined on this review. We have been favored with exhaustive arguments upon this point. The cases seem to hold that the test is whether or not there is a causal connection between the injury and the employment; that is, are they so connected that the injury naturally resulted from the employment.

The arguments of counsel on both sides turn upon the question whether the assault upon Parks was a hazard special to his employment. Many cases are cited in which injury suffered from robbery of bank messengers and paymasters has been held to be compensable under these compensation acts. While it has been stated that these laws cover only dangers which might have been anticipated, yet the cases generally hold that if, after the injury, it can be seen that the injury was incurred because of the employment, it need not be such as to have been anticipated. We think that it is the better rule.

The award of the commission can be sustained only on the ground that Parks lost his life while he was in the course of his employment and as the result of an attempt upon the part of the Boscoes to obtain possession of the employer's automobile.

The danger of assault upon a highway for the purpose of robbery is generally recognized, and said danger is more imminent in recent years, since the possession of an automobile affords ready means of escape.

This court has held that an accident suffered by an employé while riding in an automobile to reach the place of his employment is compensable, and the only question is whether or not the danger of assault for the purpose of robbery is as generally recognized as is the danger from collision or...