Jay v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
Decision Date | 27 June 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 3042.,3042. |
Citation | 150 F.2d 247 |
Parties | JAY v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
A. H. Nebeker, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Robert L. Judd, Paul H. Ray, and S. J. Quinney, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
Daniel C. Smith, of Chicago, Ill. (Walker B. Davis, of Chicago, Ill., and E. C. Jensen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
Perry A. Jay, an employee of Midwest Piping and Supply Company, sustained personal injuries in the course of his employment at Geneva, Utah. He elected to take compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state, Utah Code 1943, 42-1-1 et seq.; the insurance carrier for Midwest Piping and Supply Company commenced the payment of compensation benefits in accordance with the Act; and the payments were accepted. Jay executed a written instrument in which it was recited that he elected to take the compensation benefits, and that because the injuries resulted from third-party negligence he assigned to the insurance carrier any cause of action he might have against the third party; and the insurance carrier executed a written instrument reciting that it assigned, transferred, and set over to Jay its right, title, and interest in and to any cause of action which it might hold by virtue of the assignment from him and also by virtue of the right of subrogation. Jay later brought this suit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, and Fred C. Jacobs, its agent and employee, to recover damages. It was alleged in the complaint that the negligence of the defendants was the proximate cause of the injuries. Answers and replies were filed, and defendants then interposed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for the dismissal of the action. The court dismissed the action without prejudice. For convenience, reference will be made to the parties as they appeared in the trial court.
The action was dismissed for prematurity. The basis on which the court rested the dismissal was that there was no cause of action against the defendants until the amount of the compensation due under the Workmen's Compensation Act had been paid in full. Section 42-1-58, Utah Code Annotated 1943, provides: In Johanson v. Cudahy Packing Co., 101 Utah 219, 120 P.2d 281, it was held that payment of compensation by the employer or the insurance carrier, within the purview of the statute, meant payment in full of the award; and that the insurance carrier could not maintain the action until payment in full had been made. That case was undisturbed in its controlling effect at the time the court below dismissed this action, and it was expressly followed. But the controversy involved in that case was again reviewed on appeal; and, expressly departing from the earlier conclusion, it was held that payment in full of the compensation award was not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a third party whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury or death. Johanson v. Cudahy Packing Co., Utah, 152 P.2d 98. It therefore is clear that under the law of Utah as last enunciated by the supreme court of the state, the dismissal of this action on the ground of prematurity was improvident.
Endeavoring to sustain the judgment, defendants assert that plaintiff assigned to the insurance carrier that part of his cause of action which had not already been transferred to it by subrogation; that the attempted assignment from the insurance carrier to plaintiff was without effect; and that therefore plaintiff was not the real party in interest vested with the right to maintain the action. As already indicated, the trial court rested its judgment on a different basis, but it is well settled that a judgment which is correct in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bradford v. Moench
...in the plaintiffs' complaint are true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Jay v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 150 F.2d 247 (10th Cir.1945). Defendants' Motion to The defendants' memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint (Fil......
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Riverview State Bank
...Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55, 61 S.Ct. 95, 85 L.Ed. 36; Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 58 S.Ct. 154, 82 L.Ed. 224; Jay v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 247. We reach the question of the liability of the RFC under the provisions of the Participation Agreement. The Agreement w......
-
FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN WICHITA v. Luther
...238, 58 S.Ct. 154, 82 L.Ed. 224; J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55, 61 S.Ct. 95, 85 L.Ed. 36; Jay v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 247; American Surety Company of New York v. Brummel, 10 Cir., 184 F.2d 935; Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 6......
-
Dreher v. Bedford Realty, Inc.
...the third party wrongdoer. Decisions elsewhere under somewhat similar statutes tend to support this conclusion. Jay v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 247, 249; General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., of Perth, Scotland v. Zerbe Construction Co., Inc., 269 N.Y. 227......