Scott v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3244.,3244. |
| Parties | SCOTT v. WHITE EAGLE OIL & REFINING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
J. H. Brady, of Kansas City, Kan., for plaintiff.
A. L. Berger, of Kansas City, Kan., for defendant.
On the record in this case, the parties have requested a decision of certain questions of law before entering upon the trial of the case. The principal question of law thus presented is this: By what law are the rights of the parties in this case to be determined under the peculiar facts of this case?
The facts are: The plaintiff at the time of the injury to him was in the employ of the defendant on a salary or wage of $100 per month. This contract was entered into in the state of Missouri, and was continued for the period of a year. At the time this contract was entered upon, that state had a Workmen's Compensation Law (Laws Mo. 1927, p. 490). The injury to the plaintiff occurred while he was working for defendant under this contract of employment in the state of Kansas. At this time the state of Kansas also had in force a Workmen's Compensation Law. The action as brought in this case would seem from a reading of the petition filed in the state court from which a removal was taken into this court to be in form and legal intent a common-law action for damages for negligence of defendant causing the injury to plaintiff of which he complains.
The questions presented now for determination are these:
(1) Had the plaintiff at the time the injury to him incurred any right of action against defendant to recover for its negligence even if such negligence was the direct and proximate cause of his injury; (2) if the Compensation Law of the state of either Missouri or of this state of Kansas had taken away his right to resort to the common law because the Compensation Law under which he was working was exclusive in character, it is then quite clear he had and has no remedy at the common law; (3) if plaintiff is bound by contract to recover his damages under the Workmen's Compensation Law of either the state of Missouri or the state of Kansas, the question arises, under the law of which state does a right of recovery arise, that of the place of the contract or that of the place of the injury?
Coming now to a determination of these questions, it may be said: The Workmen's Compensation Act of Missouri (Laws 1927, p. 492) where the contract of employment was made, provides, as follows:
Paragraph b of section 12 of the Compensation Law of Missouri provides as follows: "This act shall apply to all injuries received in this state, regardless of where the contract of employment was made, and also to all injuries received outside of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overcash v. Yellow Transit Co.
... ... Cudahy Packing ... Co., 241 S.W. 960; Mitchell v. Smelting & Refining ... Co., 202 Mo.App. 251, 215 S.W. 506; Daggett v. K.C ... Structural ... Laclede ... Steel, 347 Mo. 36, 145 S.W.2d 388; Scott v. White ... Eagle Oil Co., 47 F.2d 615; Sloan v. Appalachian ... ...
-
Hauch v. Connor
...Pendar v. H. & B. American Mach. Co., 35 R.I. 321, 87 A. 1 (1913). Other courts employed a contract approach. Scott v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co., 47 F.2d 615 (D.Kan.1930); Barnhart v. American Concrete Steel Co., 227 N.Y. 531, 125 N.E. 675 (1920). Today, however, many courts recognize ......
-
De Gray v. Miller Bros. Const. Co.
... ... commissioner of industries. Case was heard by Clarence R ... White, commissioner of industries, on an agreed statement of ... facts. From ... Kellogg & Sons (C. C. A), 52 F.2d 129, 134; ... Scott v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co. , 47 ... F.2d 615; Proper v ... ...
-
Wilson v. Faull
...531, 125 N.E. 675 (Ct.App.1920); Orleans Dredging Co. v. Frazie, 179 Miss. 188, 173 So. 431 (Sup.Ct.1937); Scott v. White Eagle Oil and Refining Co., 47 F.2d 615 (D.C.D.Kan.1930); Bagnel v. Springfield Sand & Tile Co., 144 F.2d 65 (1 Cir., 1944), or the state of contract, Mitchell v. J. A. ......