Nix v. Department of Labor and Industries, 25868.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | 25868. |
| Citation | 59 P.2d 740,186 Wash. 651 |
| Parties | NIX v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Jefferson County; John M. Ralston Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by A. J. Nix claiming compensation as a salaried peace officer of Jefferson county. From a judgment reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries rejecting the claim, and remanding the case to the department for allowance and payment of the claim, the Department of Labor and Industries appeals.
Reversed with direction.
G. W Hamilton and Browder Brown, both of Olympia, for appellant.
Trumbull Severyns & Trumbull, of Port Angeles, for respondent.
A claim for compensation, filed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 7673 et seq.), was rejected by the Department of Labor and Industries. On appeal to the joing board of the department, the order of rejection was affirmed. An appeal was then taken by the claimant to the superior court, where, after a trial, judgment was entered reversing the order of rejection and remanding the case to the department for allowance and payment of the claim. From that judgment, the department has appealed.
For several years prior to 1934, respondent, A. J. Nix, was a deputy sheriff in the employ of Jefferson county and as such was paid a regular monthly salary by the county. Owing to the fact, however, that the county commissioners, in passing on the sheriff's budget for 1934, did not allow a sufficient appropriation for more than one deputy, respondent was discharged as a regular salaried county officer about the first of that year, and since then he has not received any monthly salary from the county, after his discharge, however, respondent still retained his commission, and thereafter continued as a special deputy for particular assignments as occasion should arise. Under the plan followed by the sheriff after January 1, 1934, whenever a call came in for a special deputy, the firm or business requesting such deputy was required to pay for his services. At one time during the year 1934, the sheriff had as many as eight such special deputies.
At a place called Four Corners, in Jefferson county, was a dance hall owned and operated by private individuals. The owners of the dance hall, desiring the services of a peace officer on their premises on Wednesday and Saturday nights, when the dances were in progress, made a request of the sheriff for the assignment of a special deputy to that duty. The request was granted, with the understanding that the special deputy was to be paid by the proprietors of the dance hall at the rate of $4 for each night that he served.
Respondent, at the direction of the sheriff, went out to the dance hall and there completed arrangements with the proprietors for his services and wages. He served in the capacity of special deputy at the dance hall from January to September, 1934. During the same period, he also acted as a special deputy sheriff for periods of two and five days, respectively, at two industrial plants where he was engaged in doing guard duty during a strike. On those two occasions, he was, likewise, paid for his services by the owners of the plants.
No part of the wages received by respondent during 1934 was ever turned over to the county. It appears, also, that on several occasions, while respondent was working at the dance hall, particularly on Saturday nights, the sheriff sent him to other places in the county for short periods of time to quell some disturbance or to straighten out some traffic difficulty. These were of minor importance, however, and respondent was not paid anything therefor by the county. It further appears that respondent was not obliged to perform any special duty unless he was to be compensated therefor.
On September 9, 1934, while on duty at Four Corners, respondent endeavored to quell a fight that took place between two individuals just outside the dance hall. After some effort, he succeeded in putting one of the combatants in an automobile. In some way, the car was caused to back up and run over respondent's foot, injuring several of his toes. It was for this injury that the claim was filed.
Respondent's name was not on any pay roll of Jefferson county requiring the payment of assessments into the accident or medical aid funds of the state, nor did the county ever contribute toward or pay into either of those funds any assessment based on the work performed by respondent during 1934.
With these facts Before us, we approach the law applicable to the case.
The Workmen's Compensation Act, as originally enacted, provided relief only for workmen employed in industry and against what is termed extrahazardous employment. Chapter 74, Laws 1911, pp. 345, 346, §§ 1 and 2 Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 7673 and 7674 (after amendment in 1927). In 1923, the Legislature enacted section 7674a, which provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial