Miller v. St. Regis Paper Co., 35698

• Decision Date: 20 September 1962
• Docket Number: No. 35698,35698
• Citation: 374 P.2d 675,60 Wn.2d 484
• Parties: Dominic MILLER and Ruth Miller, his wife, a marital community, Appellants, v. ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 484

60 Wn.2d 484

374 P.2d 675

Dominic MILLER and Ruth Miller, his wife, a marital community, Appellants, v. ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Respondent.

No. 35698.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Sept. 20, 1962.

Cohn and Koch, Merle D. Cohn, Seattle, for appellants.

Geer, Richabaugh & Billett, Tacoma, for respondent.

HUNTER, Judge.

This appeal results from a grant of a petition for rehearing filed by Mrs. Ruth Miller, the plaintiff (appellant), an employee of the defendant (respondent). This court's departmental opinion rendered upon the original appeal, appears in 159 Wash.Dec. 89, 366 P.2d 214 (1961). By that opinion, we dismissed the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries on the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the matter came within the coverage of the workmen's compensation statute. The lack of jurisdiction was raised by this court on its own motion.

We have carefully considered the arguments of counsel and we are convinced that the departmental opinion is in error for the following reasons:

The record discloses that prior to this action the plaintiff filed a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries; it was rejected and a request for reconsideration was denied upon notice to all parties. No appeal was taken from the rejection. We said in Prince v. Saginaw Logging Co., 197 Wash. 4, 84 P.2d 397 (1938), which was not brought to our attention at the departmental hearing, that the rejection of an industrial insurance claim on the ground that the workman was not in the course of his employment, from which no appeal is taken, is res judicata against the employer in a subsequent action by the workman. See, also, Hammack v. Monroe Street Lbr. Co., 49 Wash. 2d 581, 303 P.2d 1095 (1956); Allied Stores Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries, 160 Wash.Dec. 139, 372 P.2d 190 (1962). Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to prosecute her claim against the defendant employer in a civil action.

Furthermore, the departmental opinion erroneously applied to the instant case a 1961 statutory amendment which defines 'course of employment.' Laws 1961, c. 107. The new definition was determined to be a clarification of existing law rather than an extension of coverage by the act. However, an examination of proceedings in legislative committee on a bill similar to the 1961 amendment, of which we were not aware at the departmental hearing, convinces us that the 1961 legislature had in mind substantive law extending coverage to accidents on the job site and that it was not considering a clarification of the definition of 'course of employment.' See House Bill No. 413 and Minutes of Meetings of the Legislative Council's Subcommittee on Labor for July 17, 1959, November 16, 1959, and January 29, 1960. Therefore, we now review this case in light of the common law theories originally advanced by counsel on this appeal.

The plaintiff sustained a broken hip when she slipped and fell in the hallway of the defendant's building while she was on her way to punch a time clock to begin her morning work shift. In regard to the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff alleged the following: On the walkway, immediate to the stairway leading into the building, there existed a depressed area which accumulated water during rainy weather. Employees entering the building necessarily had to pass through the depression, which caused the hallway to become slippery with water. Although this slippery condition was brought to the attention of the defendant, it failed to take measures for the safety of its...