S. H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 4978
Decision Date | 23 June 1947 |
Docket Number | 4978 |
Citation | 66 Ariz. 67,182 P.2d 931 |
Parties | S. H. KRESS & CO. et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding for writ of prohibition by S. H. Kress & Company and Clarence L. Wise against the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Honorable Edwin Beauchamp as Judge thereof.
Alternative writ of prohibition made peremptory.
H. S McCluskey, of Phoenix (John R. Franks, of Phoenix, of counsel), for petitioners.
Struckmeyer & Struckmeyer and Jack C. Cavness, all of Phoenix, for respondent.
Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask, J. A. Riggins, Jr., and Henry S. Stevens, all of Phoenix, amici curiae.
Stanford, Chief Justice. La Prade and Udall, JJ., concur.
This matter comes to us on an application for a writ of prohibition sought by S. H. Kress and Company and Clarence L. Wise, who are represented by the regular attorneys for the Industrial Commission of Arizona.
On or about the 24th day of May, 1946, George M. Seivert, by his guardian Frank J. Seivert, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, against S. H. Kress and Company and Clarence L. Wise. The basis for the action was that plaintiff was a minor, age thirteen, and therefore was employed unlawfully by defendant Wise, assistant manager of the defendant S. H. Kress and Company; that defendant corporation unlawfully permitted the said George M. Seivert to work for it; that the employment was negligence per se; and, while so employed, the said George M. Seivert was permanently injured and damages were accordingly sought through a common law action.
Separate answers were filed for Clarence L. Wise and the S. H. Kress and Company, claiming that S. H. Kress and Company was the boy's employer as defined by Article 9, Chapter 56, A.C.A.1939, and that the said company had complied with the Workmen's Compensation Law by insuring all of its employees, including the plaintiff George M. Seivert under a policy issued by the Industrial Commission of Arizona, which policy was then in good standing.
The facts further show that at the time of the accident S. H. Kress and Company caused George M. Seivert to be taken to the hospital where all reasonable first aid was furnished and the Industrial Commission provided accident benefits, including medical, hospital, surgical and nursing expense. Thereafter the doctor in attendance made his report to the Industrial Commission; the injured child filed an application with the Commission for accident benefits and compensation, and the boy's mother made application for a change of physicians which was granted, and she ratified and approved the claims for benefits filed. Formal written claims were filed with the Industrial Commission for accident benefits and compensation under the law of Arizona, and the Industrial Commission thereunder paid for the hospital, surgeons, doctors, nurses, medicines, etc., but before paying compensation benefits, the Industrial Commission required the appointment of a guardian for the said George Seivert by the Superior Court of Maricopa County. Plaintiff Frank J. Seivert, father of the injured boy, was duly appointed the guardian ad litem for his son. However, Frank J. Seivert brought an action in the Superior Court, which is the cause of this application for writ of prohibition at this time, the petitioners for the writ herein claiming that the exclusive remedy of the plaintiff is under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Arizona.
The issue, therefore, in this case is whether or not the compensation law is binding on minors illegally permitted to work.
Article 6, Sec. 6, of our Constitution, in part, reads:
"The superior court shall also have original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court; * * *"
Other states as well as Arizona have held that administrative boards and commissions created to administer such as the Workmen's Compensation Act have exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions of fact and of law, including equitable remedies or defenses as they relate to compensation insurance, or related powers or matters, subject, of course, to the right of review as to whether the commission's orders were supported by evidence. A case from a state whose laws on this subject are similar to the State of Arizona, is the case of Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 98 P.2d 456, 459, 127 A.L.R. 461. The employee in this case was a minor. We quote:
In support of his theory, respondent sets forth Article 18, Section 8, of the Constitution of Arizona, which reads in part:
"* * * provided that it shall be optional with any employee engaged in any such private employment to settle for such compensation, or to retain the right to sue said employer as provided by this constitution; * * *"
And it is his further contention:
Respondent states that the Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act is unique and "In no other State is an illegally employed minor deemed an employee under the Act, and at the same time not made sui juris."
Respondent quotes from the case of Ortega v. Salt Lake Wet Wash Laundry, 108 Utah 1, 156 P.2d 885, where a section of the Utah Code, akin to our Sec. 56-974 has been construed by the Utah Supreme Court. Our Sec. 56-974 reads:
"Minor deemed sui juris. -- A minor working at an age and at an occupation legally permitted shall be deemed of the age of majority for the purpose of this article, and no other person shall have any cause of action or right to compensation for an injury to such minor workman, but in the event of the award of a lump sum of compensation to such minor employee, such sum shall be paid only to the legally appointed guardian of such minor."
Respondent quotes from the Ortega case, supra [108 Utah 1, 156 P.2d 889] as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
... ... No. 80-6059 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... Argued and ... H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 67, 72, 182 ... ...
-
Morgan v. Hays
... ... Jack D. H. HAYS, Judge, Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the nty of Maricopa, and said Superior Court, Respondents, ... , Judge of the Superior Court, Maricopa County, hereinafter referred to as respondent, in an ... S. H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Ariz. 67, 182 ... ...
-
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
... ... * ... 2 CA-CIV 4 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona ... Sept. 22, 1965 ... Our Supreme Court's decision in S. H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 66 ... ...
-
Franks v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
... ... No. 1 CA-CIV 7012 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, ... Division 1, ... two issues: whether the Arizona superior courts have jurisdiction over and whether there ... S.H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 67, 69, 182 ... ...