Northern States Contracting Company v. Oakes

• Decision Date: 02 March 1934
• Docket Number: 29,487
• Citation: 253 N.W. 371,191 Minn. 88
• Parties: NORTHERN STATES CONTRACTING COMPANY v. WEBSTER C. OAKES
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

253 N.W. 371

191 Minn. 88

NORTHERN STATES CONTRACTING COMPANY v. WEBSTER C. OAKES

No. 29,487

Supreme Court of Minnesota

March 2, 1934

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover alleged damages of $8,356.71 suffered by plaintiff by reason of increased workmen's compensation insurance premiums it was required to pay for the years 1928 to 1932 in consequence of the death of one of its employes, caused by defendant's negligence. Defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was sustained, Gustavus Loevinger Judge, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Master and servant -- consequence of wrongful death of employe -- increased rate of insurance.

Increased workmen's compensation insurance premiums which plaintiff had to pay in consequence of an employe's death caused by a negligent act of defendant, a subcontractor, are too remote and indirect results of such wrongful act to be recoverable.

Doherty Rumble, Bunn & Butler and William Mitchell, for appellant.

Orr, Stark, Kidder & Freeman, for respondent.

OPINION

LORING, Justice.

The plaintiff seeks to recover $8,356.71 alleged to be the increased amount which it has been required to pay as premiums for workmen's compensation insurance during the years 1928 to 1932 on account of the death of Joseph Enrighter, an employe who was killed while in its service by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint.

The plaintiff corporation was engaged exclusively in construction work for governmental bodies, including the state, counties, and cities. The plaintiff and Enrighter were subject to the workmen's compensation act, and the plaintiff was insured against liability thereunder. In 1926 it had a contract with the city of St. Paul for the construction of a sewer system and engaged defendant as a subcontractor to drive some piling necessary for the performance of this work. The operation of driving the piles was conducted in close proximity to employes of the plaintiff who were engaged in other branches of its work. June 3, 1926, the defendant, it is alleged, so negligently conducted his operations that a pile fell upon and killed Enrighter.

1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, §§ 3612-3634, established a state rating bureau which fixes rates for insurance premiums to be charged by insurers against liability under the workmen's compensation act. Premiums vary from employer to employer and are fixed in part according to experience records which include the accidents occurring in the employer's work. It is alleged that as a result of the killing of Enrighter through defendant's negligence the plaintiff's rating was increased during the years 1928 to 1932, inclusive, so that in the year 1928 the increase was $51.89; in 1929, $1,455.26; in 1930, $6,138.92; in 1931, $710.06; in 1932, 58 cents. These sums total $8,356.71, the amount which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action.

The defendant takes the position that the damages sought to be recovered by the plaintiff are too remote to be the proper subject of recovery. As we view the case, the determination of this question disposes of the appeal. At the outset it will be observed that this is not an action wherein the plaintiff by subrogation seeks to recover what, under the compensation act, it has been compelled to pay to an injured employe or to the dependents of a deceased employe. This employe had no dependents. The plaintiff relies largely upon such cases as Travelers Ins. Co. v. Great Lakes Engineering Co. (C.C.A.) 184 F. 426, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 60, wherein the plaintiff sought to recover such expenditures by reason of its right of subrogation. Plaintiff here seeks to recover damage to itself by reason of defendant's negligence in killing its employe. The plaintiff's obligation to its employe was contractual in its nature. State ex rel. Chambers v. District Court, 139 Minn. 205, 207, 166 N.W. 185, 3 A.L.R. 1347; and the fact that it had to carry compensation insurance in order to fulfill that obligation was incident to the contract obligation to its employe. In the case of Mobile L. Ins. Co. v. Brame, 95 U.S. 754, 758, 24 L.Ed. 580, where the company which insured the life of one McLemore sought to recover the amount of such life insurance from Brame, who had killed McLemore, the court said:

"The relation between the insurance company and McLemore, the deceased, was created by a contract between them, to which Brame was not a party. The injury inflicted by him was upon McLemore, against...