Lease v. Upper Potomac River Commission

• Decision Date: 10 June 1941
• Docket Number: 35.
• Citation: 20 A.2d 498,179 Md. 543
• Parties: LEASE v. UPPER POTOMAC RIVER COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

20 A.2d 498

179 Md. 543

LEASE v. UPPER POTOMAC RIVER COMMISSION et al.

No. 35.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 10, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegany County; William A. Huster Judge.

Action by Henry W. Lease against the Upper Potomac River Commission and another for injuries sustained by the plaintiff who was an employee of the named defendant, allegedly as result of defective and unsafe condition of named defendant's truck and by negligence of a fellow employee who was driving the truck. From a judgment sustaining demurrer to the declaration, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed and case remanded.

William L. Wilson, Jr., of Cumberland (Edward J. Ryan, of Cumberland, on the brief), for appellant.

William C. Walsh, of Cumberland (George W. Legge, of Cumberland, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and SLOAN, JOHNSON DELAPLAINE, COLLINS and FORSYTHE, JJ.

SLOAN, Judge.

Henry W. Lease, the appellant, brought suit against his employer the Upper Potomac River Commission, a Maryland corporation created under the Act of 1935, ch. 409, for injuries sustained by him by reason of the defective and unsafe condition of a truck of the defendant by which he was injured, and of the negligence of a fellow employee of the Commission who was driving the truck. The defendant demurred to the declaration generally and on the ground that the Upper Potomac River Commission is a governmental agency and, therefore, not suable. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff appealed.

The demurrer should have been sustained, but on the allegations of the declaration and the Act of 1935, ch. 409, on another ground than that urged by the appellee in its brief. In passing upon an appeal, this court is not confined to the reasons assigned by the counsel or court. Sothoron v. Weems, 3 Gill & J. 435, 441; Parker v. Sedwick, 4 Gill 318; Ellicott v. Turner and Peterson, 4 Md. 476, 485. The court gave no reason, so the assumption is that any or every reason was held by it for its action. Code Art. 5, sec. 10.

It is admitted by the declaration that the plaintiff is an employee of the Commission which is engaged in the construction of what is known in Western Maryland as the Savage River Dam Projject located in Garrett County. This being true the plaintiff and defendant would come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, Code, Art. 101, by which, sec. 46, 'Whenever the State, county, or city or any municipality shall engage in any extra-hazardous work, within the meaning of this Article, whether for pecuniary gain or otherwise, in which workmen are employed for wages, this Article shall be applicable thereto,' and we, therefore, assume, in the absence of any allegation of the declaration to the contrary, that the Upper Potomac River Commission has complied with the provisions of Article 101 in providing or insuring compensation to injured employees.

By section 14, Article 101 of the Code, it is provided that 'The liability prescribed by the last preceding paragraph shall be exclusive, except that if an employer fails to secure the payment of compensation for his injured employees and their...