Larson v. Trageser

• Decision Date: 28 October 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22340.,22340.
• Citation: 150 Minn. 182,184 N.W. 833
• Parties: LARSON et al. v. TRAGESER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

150 Minn. 182

184 N.W. 833

LARSON et al.

v.TRAGESER.

No. 22340.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 28, 1921.

Certiorari to District Court, Lyon County; I. M. Olson, Judge.

Proceeding by Laura Larson and others against Steven A. Trageser under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Judgment for plaintiffs, and the defendant brings certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Section 8205 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913) creates a definite and fixed status of employer and employé with reference to the act, not a mere rebuttable presumption of evidence, and provides a method by which either may avoid the same.

The method so prescribed for avoiding the status thus created, and keeping without the act, is exclusive of all others, and must be in writing, as there required.

Evidence of a parol agreement or understanding between the employer and employé that either or both should be excluded from the act and not bound thereby is inadmissible, because not the form of exclusion permitted by the act. Mathews & Mathews, of Marshall, for appellant.

James H. Hall, of Marshall, for respondents.

BROWN, C. J.

Certiorari to review a judgment in proceedings under the Workman's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913, c. 84a).

The facts are not in dispute. Christ N. Larson was in the employ of defendant at his gasoline filling station located in the village of Cottonwood, this state, and while engaged in the work of his employment was instantly killed by the explosion of a gasoline tank situated on the premises. He left surviving as his next of kin two minor daughters who were dependent upon him for support. The proceeding was instituted in their behalf to recover the compensation given by the statute in such cases. The sole defense interposed at the trial below was that the decedent was not within the protection of the Compensation Act; therefore that no recovery could be had. In support of the defense defendant offered to show a parol understanding between defendant and decedent that the Compensation Act should not apply to decedent under the employment; that decedent at the time the contract of employment was entered into expressly declared that it was against his religion to accept insurance or indemnity of the kind and would not enter defendant's services if the statute applied. The evidence so offered further shows an acquiescence in decedent's position and the acceptance of his services on the conditions imposed. There was no writing of any kind expressing that understanding, or other compliance with the pertinent provisions of the statute on the subject. The trial court rejected the evidence to which exception was noted.

[1][2][3] In our view of the question the ruling of the learned trial court was right. Section 8205, G. S. 1913, the section of the Compensation Act relating to and dealing with the subject, is definite and specific as to what employers and employés shall be bound by the act, and includes all contracts of employment entered into subsequent to the enactment of the statute. It declares that all contracts of employment thereafter made shall be presumed to have been made with reference and subject to the provisions of part 2 of the act, unless otherwise expressly stated in the contract in writing, or unless written or printed notice is given by either party to the other as therein provided that he does not accept the provisions of the act. The pertinent provisions as relating to the employé who desires to...