McCaa Chevolet Co. v. Bounds
Decision Date | 11 December 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 4-7455.,4-7455. |
Citation | 183 S.W.2d 932 |
Parties | McCAA CHEVROLET CO. et al. v. BOUNDS. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crittenden County; Zal B. Harrison, Judge.
Suit by O. S. Bounds, administrator of the estate of William D. McNeely, deceased, against McCaa Chevrolet Company, employer, and the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insurer, to recover installments of monthly disability benefits which matured after the death of the employee, consolidated with an appeal from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. From an adverse judgment, the employer and insurer appeal.
Judgment modified and as modified affirmed.
Bridges, Bridges, Young & Gregory, of Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Wils Davis and Taylor Beare, both of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
The question for determination here is whether the installments of monthly disability payments, due to an injured employee under the provisions of the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Law, Acts 1939, Act 319, which mature after the death of the employee, become part of the assets of the employee's estate. The circuit court answered the question in the affirmative and rendered judgment against the employer and his insurance carrier in favor of appellee, as administrator of the estate of William D. McNeely, deceased, for $1,581.38, covering amount of unpaid and unmatured (at the time of McNeely's death) installments of partial permanent disability compensation payable to McNeely. To reverse that judgment appellants prosecute this appeal.
William D. McNeely, employed by appellant, McCaa Chevrolet Company of West Memphis, Arkansas, whose insurance carrier was appellant, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, on December 6, 1940, sustained an injury to his left eye, which destroyed 80% of the vision thereof. Liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Arkansas was admitted by appellants, and, without the formality of an award by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, appellants commenced paying McNeely for his disability during the healing period at the rate of $19.59 per week. The healing period ended on February 18, 1941, whereupon appellants began to pay McNeely for his permanent partial disability at the rate of $19.59 per week. Under the statute he was entitled to receive one hundred such weekly payments. On May 26, 1941, McNeely and appellants filed a joint petition with the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Commission asking for the privilege of making a lump-sum settlement of the liability for these weekly benefits. This petition was denied. McNeely died on July 20, 1941, from causes not connected with the injury to his eye. It is stipulated that weekly payments aggregating $72.76 had accrued before McNeely died, and that, if he had lived to collect them, other weekly installments aggregating $1,533.62 would have been payable. Appellants tendered to appellee, in settlement of all liability, the sum of $72.76. This tender was refused, and appellee petitioned the Workmen's Compensation Commission for an order requiring appellants to make payment of the installments falling due after McNeely's death to appellee. This petition was denied and an appeal to circuit court was taken from the Commission's order thereon. Appellee also brought suit for these payments and the two proceedings were consolidated in the circuit court.
This court has not been heretofore called upon to decide the exact question involved herein.
The liabilities created by the Workmen's Compensation Law are neither ex contractu nor ex delicto, so that the provisions of statutes pertaining to survival of causes of action and our decisions construing these statutes are of no aid to us in answering the question posed by this litigation. The general rule is "that a cause of action cannot survive in favor of or against the personal representatives of a deceased person, unless it accrued in favor of or against decedent in his lifetime." 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 136, p. 184. Therefore, if it may be held that the liability for the payments sued for by appellee survived in favor of McNeely's estate, authority for such holding must be found in the Workmen's Compensation Law.
This law contains no express provision for the survival, after death of the employee, of the liability of the employer and his insurance carrier to the injured workman; nor is it expressly provided by said law that such liability does not survive. Hence, it becomes necessary to determine whether, under a fair interpretation of this law, we may discover therein a legislative intention that the liability here involved survives after the death of the employee.
In ascertaining the intention of the legislature recourse may be had to the entire act under consideration. 50 Am.Jur. 350. "The intention of the lawmaker is to be deduced from a view of every material part of the statute." Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 245, 72 L.Ed. 544, 56 A.L.R. 379; Cooper v. Town of Greenwood, 195 Ark. 26, 111 S.W.2d 452; Bridwell v. Davis, 206 Ark. 445, 175 S.W.2d 992; McClure v. McClure, 205 Ark. 1032, 172 S.W. 2d 243; Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Kincannon, Judge, 202 Ark. 235, 150 S.W. 2d 193, 134 A.L.R. 747; Drainage District No. 18, Craighead County, v. McMeen, 183 Ark. 984, 39 S.W.2d 713; Berry v. Sale, 184 Ark. 655, 43 S.W.2d 225; Rose v. W. B. Worthen Company, 186 Ark. 205, 52 S. W.2d 15, 85 A.L.R. 212; Wiseman, Commissioner of Revenues, v. Affolter, 192 Ark. 509, 92 S.W.2d 388.
These portions of the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Law may be said to throw some light on the question here involved:
(1). Subdivision (j) of Section 19 of the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Law is as follows: It is difficult to draw from this language any conclusion other than that the legislature deemed the liability of the employer to the injured workman to be one that terminated on the death of the employee. Otherwise in fixing the amount that should be paid to the injured worker in a lump-sum settlement, the act would not have contained any provision for estimating the probable length of the injured worker's life. The quoted provisions of the act seem to be inconsistent with a conclusion that these disability payments were under the act required to be paid after the death of the employee.
(2). By Section 21 of the act it is provided that benefits payable to the employee shall not be subject to attachment, garnishment, or any other remedy by which a creditor of the employee might seek to collect his debt out of the benefit payments. To hold that these payments, on the death of the employee, become assets of his estate, and as such subject to the claims of the employee's creditors, would therefore in some degree conflict with the intention of the legislature, thus expressed, to keep these funds absolutely free from seizure by creditors in any kind of proceeding.
(3). By the same Section (Section 21) the legislature prescribed that the liability of the employer for compensation to the employee should not be assignable. One of the tests of the survivability of a cause of action is its assignability. Ordinarily, if a cause of action is not assignable, it does not survive. Arkansas Life Insurance Company v. American National Insurance Company, 110 Ark. 130, 161 S.W. 136, 138. 1 Am.Jur. 69.
While there is some conflict in the decisions of other courts of last resort, the weight of authority in America supports the view that the liability of the employer does not survive the death of the workman in a case of this kind.
The rule is thus stated by the supreme court of Minnesota in the case of Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Empire National Bank & Trust Co., 192 Minn. 398, 256 N.W. 663, 664, 95 A.L.R. 250:
In the Annotation of 15 A.L.R. page 821, it is said: "It may be said in general, however, that under the statutes of the majority of the states in which the courts have considered the question, the right to compensation not yet accrued * * * is terminated by his death, and does not pass to his personal representatives or heirs."
In the same work there is appended to the opinion in the case of Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Empire...
To continue reading
Request your trial