New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Reinhart
| Decision Date | 29 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17203 |
| Citation | 1927 OK 85,255 P. 587,124 Okla. 227 |
| Parties | NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. v. REINHART & DONOVAN CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Wm. H. Zwick, Judge.
Action by the New Amsterdam Casualty Company and John Clemens against the Reinhart & Donovan Company and E. W. Walker. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Jas. C. Cheek and Albert L. McRill, for plaintiffs in error.
Ross & Thurman, for defendants in error.
¶1 This cause presents an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, wherein a demurrer was sustained to plaintiffs in error's petition. It was pleaded that John Clemens, plaintiff in error, was in the employ of John C. Stewart, who was a subcontractor, under defendants in error Reinhart & Donovan, a corporation, principal contractor. E. W. Walker was the owner of the building being constructed. The New Amsterdam Casualty Company was insurance carrier of John C. Stewart. Injury to John Clemens arose out of and in the course of his employment with Stewart. The New Amsterdam Casualty Company, under its liability, paid compensation to Clemens and received an assignment of Clemens' pretended claim against Walker and Reinhart & Donovan.
¶2 Clemens contends that the compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not exclusive, and that he is entitled to an additional sum against defendants below for pain and suffering. The New Amsterdam Company seeks to recover from defendants below, defendants in error, for the amount it paid Clemens pursuant to the workman's compensation policy.
¶3 In this cause there is no question under the pleadings but that John C. Stewart occupied the position of subcontractor.
¶4 The same contentions are here made as were made in No. 17075, Calvin Fox et al. v. Chas. M. Dunning et al., 124 Okla. 228, 255 P. 582. The same authorities are presented there as here. The decision there is decisive of the issue here, the syllabus of that cause is adopted as the syllabus here, and the judgment of the lower court in this cause is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brunstetter Motor Co. v. Brunstetter
...power, where the loss is within the provisions of the act. Fox v. Dunning, 124 Okla. 228, 255 P. 582: New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Rinehardt & Donovan Co., 124 Okla. 227, 255 P. 587, and Smith & McDonnald v. State Industrial Commission, 133 Okla. 77, 271 P. 142. ¶24 While this court said i......
-
Waldrep v. Moses
...Co. v. Corporation Commission, 96 Okla. 19, 220 P. 54; Fox v. Dunning, 124 Okla. 228, 255 P. 582; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Reinhart & Donovan Co. et al., 124 Okla. 227, 255 P. 587; State ex rel. Ledbetter, Sheriff, v. Pitts, 137 Okla. 59, 277 P.2d 918; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ex......
-
Malone v. United Zinc & Smelting Corp.
... ... 52 162 P. 938; Henly v. Okla. Union Ry. Co. 81 Okla. 224, 197 P. 488; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Reinhart & Donovan Co., 124 Okla. 227, 255 P. 587; Smith v. Baker, 157 Okla. 155, ... ...
-
Alexander v. Von Wedel
...in part upon suffering and mental anguish of the injured employee. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Watts, supra; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Rinehart & Donovan, 124 Okla. 227, 255 P. 587; Markley v. White et al., 168 Okla. 244, 32 P.2d 716. ¶12 There is one exception noted in this court, which is ......