Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3820. |
| Parties | MARTIN v. KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
John T Casey, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Bogle Graves, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant damages for injuries received while being employed in the mine of the defendant in Alaska, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant answers with certain denials and admissions, and pleads affirmatively chapter 71, Session Laws of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska for the year 1915 commonly called the Workmen's Compensation Act of Alaska praying that the said law be declared the law of this case, and that by virtue of section 22 of said act the plaintiff be declared not entitled to maintain this action in this court, and that the same be dismissed. The plaintiff has filed a denial upon information and belief with relation to this act, and further states:
'That if said act was regularly passed, and is a valid and constitutional enactment, in whole or in part, and held to be the law of this case, plaintiff hereby elects to accept the compensation which a jury may award under the provisions of said compensation act.'
A motion has been made to strike the several denials as insufficient and evasive, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for judgment upon the pleadings.
I think the denials are insufficient, as the privilege granted must necessarily be subject to the limitation that acts presumably within the personal knowledge cannot be thus denied, nor is this privilege extended to denial of a matter of public record. [1] Section 21 of the Alaska Workmen's Compensation Act provides that:
'Actions for the recovery of compensation due under this act may be brought, maintained and determined in and by the courts of this territory, and when so brought shall be governed by the law of procedure applicable to other actions for the recovery of money except as herein otherwise expressly provided.'
Section 22 provides:
Section 7 of the act provides:
'The right to compensation for an injury and the remedy therefor granted by this act shall be in lieu of all rights and remedies as to such injury now existing either at common law or otherwise, and no rights or remedies, except those provided for by this act, shall accrue to employes entitled to compensation under this act while it is in effect; nor shall any right or remedy, except those provided for by this act, accrue to the personal or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper
...103, L. R. A. 1917B, 767, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 618; Barnhart v. American Concrete Steel Co., 227 N. Y. 531, 125 N. E. 675; Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corp. (D. C.) 252 F. 207. In terms, the Vermont act, section 5770, G. L. 1917, covers injuries to employees who are hired in that state, but whos......
-
Mallard v. F. M. Bohannon Inc
...outside the State. Leader Specialty Co. v. Chapman, 85 Ind.App. 296, 152 N.E. 872. See also Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corp, D.C, 252 F. 207; Dunville v. Industrial Commission, supra; Sherk v. Dept. of Labor & Industries, supra; Lutz v. State Workmen's Ins. Fund, supra; Southern Underwriter......
-
Davis v. P. E. Harris & Co.
... ... brought under it. At the time Martin v. Kennecott Copper ... Corporation, D.C., 252 F. 207, 208, was ... Appeals of this circuit. Johnson v. Kennecott Copper ... Corp., 248 F. 407, 160 C.C.A. 417. The provisions ... [171 P.2d 1019] ... ...
-
Ferguson v. Ram Enterprises, Inc.
...system (such as Tennessee), many forum states still refuse to enforce the claimant's rights. See Larson, § 84.25; Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 252 F. 207 (W.D.Wash.1918); Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo. 225, 281 S.W. 762 (1926); Consolidated Underwriters v. King, 160 Tex. 18, ......