Pickering v. Industrial Commission of Utah

• Citation: 59 Utah 35,201 P. 1029
• Decision Date: 07 November 1921
• Docket Number: 3708
• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Parties: PICKERING v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH

201 P. 1029

59 Utah 35

PICKERING v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH

No. 3708

Supreme Court of Utah

November 7, 1921

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp Laws 1917, §§ 3061-3165, by L. B. Pickering, as employe, to recover compensation for injuries while in the employ of Pickering Bros., a copartnership. From a decision of the Industrial Commission denying compensation, the employe brings the proceedings before the court for review.

DECISION VACATED.

Pierce Critchlow & Marr, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

H. H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

CORFMAN, C. J. WEBER, GIDEON, THURMAN, and FRICK, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CORFMAN, C. J.

Plaintiff commenced these proceedings May 18, 1921, as claimant before the defendant, Industrial Commission of Utah, to obtain compensation under the provisions of Chapter 100, Laws of Utah 1917, as amended by chapter 63, Laws of Utah 1919, commonly known as our Industrial Commission Act. Compensation was denied plaintiff by the Commission, and he has brought the proceedings here for review in the usual way and as provided that he may do under the provisions of said act.

It appears that the plaintiff, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah, was, some time prior to January 1, 1919, employed as an engineer and superintendent by Pickering Bros., a copartnership engaged in a general contracting business. The Pickering brothers were also residents of Salt Lake City, where they employed the plaintiff, and where they at all times maintained their place of business. Up until the year 1921, they took no contracts in outside states, but confined their operations exclusively in the performance of construction work awarded them in the carrying out of Utah projects, in which work the plaintiff had been continuously engaged in the ordinary duties of an engineer and superintendent until about March 1, 1921, when Pickering Bros. took a contract for the construction of a public highway in the state of Colorado and placed the plaintiff in charge of said project as superintendent of the work to be performed. While engaged in these duties, he became disabled in Colorado by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his said employment, for which he claims compensation. It further appears that Pickering Bros. carried compensation insurance in the Utah state insurance fund and also under the provisions of the Colorado Compensation Law for the protection of their employes while operating in said state.

Upon the foregoing facts, which are not disputed, our Commission by a majority decision refused to make an award.

After plaintiff applied for and was denied a rehearing, the case was brought here for review.

The majority of the Commission seem to have taken the position, as reflected by their findings and decision, that to allow the plaintiff compensation under the facts and attending circumstances stated would be giving the provisions of our act an extraterritorial effect not contemplated by our Legislature. In part the decision reads:

"The place of employment is not controlling in the question of jurisdiction, neither is the place of residence of the applicant, nor the place of the accident. The controlling element is to be found in the industries being developed. The jurisdiction in such cases must be the jurisdiction of the industry that is being promoted. * * * In this case it is quite clear that Pickering Bros. went beyond the jurisdiction...