Partin's Adm'R v. Black Mountain Corporation
| Citation | 237 Ky. 556 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1930 |
| Parties | Partin's Administrator v. Black Mountain Corporation. |
1. Master and Servant. — Where employee and employer have accepted Compensation Law, injured employee must prosecute claim, with certain exceptions, before compensation board (Ky. Stats., secs. 4880, 4987, 4882).
2. Master and Servant. — Where decedent was not employee at time of injury. Compensation Board's determination would not bar administrator's action for death, board being without jurisdiction.
3. Master and Servant. — Workmen's Compensation Board had no jurisdiction of claim for death of one who was not employee at time of accident.
4. Master and Servant. — Stipulation that decedent was under provisions of Compensation Act did not give board jurisdiction if in fact stipulation was untrue.
Appeal from Harlan Circuit Court.
G.G. RAWLINGS for appellant.
B.M. LEE for appellee.
Reversing.
S.T. Partin worked for appellee in mine No. 30. He had signed the compensation register, and both he and the employer were under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law. About the middle of July 1928, he quit work for appellee, turned in his cards, received his pay, and his employment was finally terminated. A few days later he went to mine No. 31 operated by appellee for the purpose of obtaining work. This mine was more than one mile and less than two miles distant from mine No. 30. In his effort to see the mine boss about employment it was necessary for him to go into the mine, or at least he did so, and, while standing in the mine near the track on which coal cars ran, he concluded that he would cross the track to a more favorable position, and as he attempted to cross the track he was struck by a coal car and died as the result of his injury. He left a widow and five children. They filed a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Board, apparently going upon the idea that Partin had come to his death while engaged in duties pertaining to his employment by appellee, and that they were both, that is Partin and appellee, operating under the Workmens' Compensation Law.
The Workmen's Compensation Board heard the evidence and reached the conclusion that at the time of the injury Partin was not engaged in the discharge of any duties as an employee of appellee. The board found that the accident did not arise out of, and was not in the course of, his employment. Consequently, an award in favor of the widow and children was denied.
After the conclusion of the hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Board an administrator was appointed for the estate of Partin, and he instituted a common-law action in the Harlan circuit court seeking to recover damages for the death of his intestate. An answer was filed containing a traverse, and, in a second paragraph, it was alleged that, as the dependents of Partin had sought relief before the Workmen's Compensation Board, the right of the administrator to maintain the common-law action was barred. Appellant filed a reply alleging that the proceedings before the Workmen's Compensation Board were not a final adjudication of the matter because the board had no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters presented in the claim. A demurrer was sustained to this pleading, and appellant declined to plead further, whereupon, the cause was submitted on the pleadings, and the court dismissed the petition.
The briefs filed by the parties make an issue over the effect of the hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Board. It is contended by counsel for appellee that appellant is forever barred by reason of the hearing before the board, and that, as no appeal was taken from the judgment of the board, a common-law action cannot be maintained. On the other hand, counsel for appellant, without seriously disputing with counsel for appellee takes the position that the Workmen's Compensation Board was wholly without jurisdiction to hear or determine the matter, and that its findings are therefore void.
If Partin was under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Ky. Stats., secs. 4880-4987) at the time of the accident, the argument advanced by counsel for appellee is entirely sound. When an employee and employer have accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the employee receives an injury, he must prosecute his claim, with certain exceptions, before the Workmen's Compensation Board, and he cannot institute an action at law to recover damages for his injury. Wells Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Vanhoose, 220 Ky. 381, 295 S.W. 464.
This case, however, does not fall under the authority of that case. In that case both parties were operating under the provisions of the law, but in this case it is the contention of appellant that Partin was not under the law when he received his injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Partins Adm'R. v. Black Mountain Corp.
...CHIEF JUSTICE DIETZMAN. Reversing. This is the third appeal of this case. The opinions on the two former appeals may be found in 237 Ky. 556, 36 S.W. (2d) 1, and 243 Ky. 791, 49 S.W. (2d) 1014. It is a suit brought by the administrator of S.T. Partin, deceased, for damages on account of the......
-
Black Mountain Corp. v. Partin's Adm'r
...against the Black Mountain Corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions. See, also, 237 Ky. 556, 36 S.W.2d 1. B. Lee, of Harlan, for appellant. G. G. Rawlings, of Harlan, for appellee. THOMAS, J. At about 9 p. m. on July 26, 1928, the plaintiff's dec......
-
Partin's Adm'r v. Black Mountain Corp.
...for appellee. DIETZMAN, Chief Justice. This is the third appeal of this case. The opinions on the two former appeals may be found in 237 Ky. 556, 36 S.W.2d 1, and 243 791, 49 S.W.2d 1014. It is a suit brought by the administrator of S. T. Partin, deceased, for damages on account of the deat......
-
Black Mountain Corp. v. Partin's Admr.
...petition, from which an appeal was prosecuted to this court, and the judgment was reversed in the case of Partin's Admr. v. Black Mountain Corporation, 237 Ky. 556, 36 S.W. (2d) 1. That opinion sustained plaintiff's contention of the absence of jurisdiction of the Compensation Board, and, o......