Industrial Commission of Utah v. Daly Mining Co.
Decision Date | 03 April 1918 |
Docket Number | 3181 |
Citation | 172 P. 301,51 Utah 602 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH v. DALY MINING CO |
Original application for writ of mandate by the Industrial Commission of the State of Utah to compel the Daly Mining Company to furnish security for payment of compensation to employees.
WRIT GRANTED.
Dan B Shields, Atty. Gen., and Jas. H. Wolfe and O. C. Dalby, Asst Attys. Gen., for plaintiff.
Marioneaux Stott & Beck for defendant.
This is an original application to this court by the plaintiff, hereinafter for convenience called the "commission," for a writ of mandate to require the defendant to comply with a certain order made by the commission to which we shall more specifically refer later. An alternative writ was duly issued requiring the defendant to comply with the order of the commission or to appear in this court and show cause why it refuses to do so. The defendant appeared and filed a general demurrer and answer at the same time. In view that the answer raises no material issue, the whole controversy was presented on the general demurrer.
The application for the writ is predicated on chapter 100, Laws Utah 1917, p. 306. The act is quite voluminous and is divided into more than 100 sections, some of which are in themselves very long. It is not practical to set forth the act at length nor to give all of its provisions even in condensed form. We shall therefore set forth such portions only of the act as are deemed strictly essential to a full understanding of the controversy, and the other portions that are deemed material will be stated in condensed form merely.
The act creates what is termed the Industrial Commission of Utah, which is the plaintiff here, called the "commission." The arrangement of the various matters contained in the act is not as orderly and logical as it might have been made, yet, when the objects and purposes of the act are considered and it is viewed as a whole, the intention of the Legislature, we think, can readily be ascertained. When that intention is once ascertained, it necessarily controls. 2 Lewis, Sutherland, St. Const., section 347. Counsel for the respective parties are, however, hopelessly at variance as to the real meaning of the several provisions of the act, and especially with respect of whether the provisions of the act are compulsory and thus require the employer to secure in advance the payment of any compensation to which any employee may become entitled under the act. The Attorney General insists with much vigor that in that regard the act is manifestly compulsory, while counsel for defendant with much force contend that the act is elective, or, at most, coercive. Whether it is the one or the other is the only question that is presented for determination, and we shall now, as briefly as possible, proceed to a consideration of that question.
We shall first set forth the portions of the act as before indicated. We shall refer to the sections in the order they are numbered in the act, regardless of the matter contained therein.
After stating matters of inducement and providing for the organization of the commission, in sections 1 to 31, section 32 prescribes rather drastic penalties in case any of the provisions or requirements of the act are violated.
Section 34 provides that all employers of labor, in January of each year, must make and file with the commission certain statements as provided in that section.
Section 35 creates what is termed "the state insurance fund for the purpose of insuring employers against liability for compensation under this act, and of assuring to the persons entitled thereto the compensation provided by this act."
Section 41 provides that all employers who insure in "the state insurance fund" shall receive from the commission a contract or policy of insurance in a form to be approved by the state commission.
Section 50 reads as follows:
Section 51 defines what employees come within the provisions of the act.
Section 52a provides:
"If a workman receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer, or the insurance carrier shall pay compensation in the amounts and to the person or persons hereinafter specified."
Section 53 reads as follows:
Section 54 provides:
"If the insurance so effected is not with the the employer shall forthwith file with the commission in form prescribed by it a notice of his insurance, together with a copy of the contract or policy of insurance."
Section 61 merely fixes the rights of employees who are covered by insurance in the
Section 63 is important, and hence we set it forth in full. It reads as follows:
Section 64 provides that all employers who do not insure either in the or with some other insurance company must, nevertheless, pay into the state treasury a tax equal to the premium tax that insurance companies generally are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ortega v. Salt Lake Wet Wash Laundry
... 156 P.2d 885 108 Utah 1 ORTEGA v. SALT LAKE WET WASH LAUNDRY et al No. 6686 ... its adoption. Industrial ... [156 P.2d 888] ... Comm. v. Daly Min. Co. , 51 ... Commission by virtue of Sec. 14-6-27, which reads: ... ...
-
Thomas v. Color Country Management
...having to prove negligence; and making industry bear the burdens of worker injuries)). For example, in Industrial Commission v. Daly Mining Co., 51 Utah 602, 172 P. 301 (1918), we rejected an employer's proposed interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Act because it would have made the ......
-
Driggs v. Utah Teachers Retirement Board
... ... Police and Fire ... Pension Commission , 120 N.J.L. 39, 198 A. 383, even ... after the retirement age, but ... effect to its purpose. Industrial Commission v ... Daly Min. Co. , 51 Utah 602, 172 P. 301; West ... ...
-
COLOR COUNTRY MANAGEMENT v. LABOR COM'N
...of the employee in having to prove negligence, and to place the burden of industrial injuries on industry); Industrial Comm'n v. Daly Mining Co., 51 Utah 602, 172 P. 301, 306 (1918) (rejecting employer's construction of the Act because it would in large measure "make it useless and of no ma......