Solvuca v. Ryan & Reilly Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 46.,46.
• Parties: SOLVUCA v. RYAN & REILLY CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

101 A. 710
131 Md. 265

SOLVUCA
v.
RYAN & REILLY CO.

No. 46.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 28, 1917.

Appeal from Baltimore Court of Common Pleas; Morris A. Soper, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Antonl Solvuca against the Ryan & Reilly Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, with costs.

See, also, 129 Md. 235, 98 Atl. 675.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

David Ash, of Baltimore, for appellant. Edwin W. Wells, of Baltimore, and Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

THOMAS, J. This suit was brought by the appellant to recover for injuries received

101 A. 711

while in the employ of the appellee, and charged in the declaration to have been caused by its negligence. As we said in the first appeal (129 Md. 235, 98 Atl. 675), the narr., on its face, presents a good cause of action, but the defendant interposed the following plea:

"That in conformity with the provisions of chapter 800 of the Acts of 1914, generally known as the Employer's Compensation Act, this defendant, the Ryan & Reilly Company, exercised the option of securing compensation for its employes engaged in hazardous employments, as provided in section 15 and subsection 3 of said act; that by an order of the State Industrial Accident Commission passed the 28th day of January, 1915, and which continued in effect until the 15th day of January, 1916, this defendant was permitted to carry its compensation risk as a self-insurer, having established its financial ability to assume the payment of the compensation required; that on the 26th day of February, 1915, the date of the alleged injury to the plaintiff in this cause, said order was in effect, and the defendant * * * had thereby secured compensation to this employe who was injured while in a hazardous employment, and the defendant fully complied with the provisions of the Compensation Act as provided by section 15, subsection 3, of said act."

The plaintiff demurred to this plea. It is not suggested that the plea is defective in form, but the purpose of the demurrer was to challenge the constitutionality of the act, which, it is claimed, contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment and article 7 of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Rights and Constitution of this state.

This act, commonly called the Workmen's Compensation Act, declares in its preamble that the state—

"recognizes that the prosecution of various industrial enterprises which must be relied upon to create and preserve the wealth and prosperity of the state involves injury to large numbers of workmen, resulting in their partial or total incapacity or death, and that under the rules of the common law and the provisions of the statutes now in force an unequal burden is cast upon its citizens, and that in determining the responsibility of the employer on account of injuries sustained by his workmen, great and unnecessary cost is now incurred in litigation, which cost is borne by the workmen, the employers and the taxpayers, in part, in the maintenance of courts and juries to determine the question of responsibility under the law as it now exists; and, * * * in addition thereto, the state and its taxpayers are subjected to a heavy burden in providing care and support for such injured workmen and their dependents, which burden should, in so far as may be consistent with the rights and obligations of the people of the state, be more fairly distributed as in this act provided;" and that "whereas, the common-law system governing the remedy of workmen against employers for injuries received in extrahazardous work is inconsistent with modern industrial conditions, and injuries in such work, formerly occasional, have now become frequent and inevitable": Therefore "the state of Maryland, exercising herein its police and sovereign power, declares that all phases of extrahazardous employments be, and they are hereby withdrawn for private controversy, and sure and certain relief for workmen injured in extrahazardous employments and their families and dependents are hereby provided for, regardless of questions of fault, and to the exclusion of every other remedy, except as provided in this act."

The act creates a commission to administer the law; authorizes it, for the purpose contemplated by the act, to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, pay rolls, documents, and testimony, and to apply to any judge of the supreme bench of Baltimore city, or of the circuit court of any county, for a rule on any witness refusing to testify, or to produce a book or paper, to show cause why he should not be committed to jail; to adopt reasonable and proper rules to govern its procedure; and provides that the commission shall not be bound by the usual common-law or statutory rules of evidence, or by any technical or formal rule of procedure, but may make the investigation in such manner as in its judgment is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and to carry out justly the spirit of the act. The commission is required to make annually a report to the Governor of the number of awards made by it, the causes of the accidents, and a detailed statement of its expenses and of the condition of the state accident fund (therein provided for), together with any other matter it may deem proper to report. Every employer is required to pay or provide, as required by the act, compensation, according to the schedule contained therein, "for the disability or death of his employe resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employe arising out of and in the course of his employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury, except where the injury is occasioned by the wilful intention" of the employe to bring about the injury or death of himself or of others, or where the injury results solely from the intoxication of the employe while on duty. The liability prescribed above is exclusive, provided that, if the employer shall fail to secure the payment of compensation as provided in the act, an injured employe, or his legal representatives in case death results from the injury, "may, at his option, elect to claim compensation" under the act, or to maintain an action in the courts for damages, in which action the defendant shall not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant or the negligence of the employe, or that the employe assumed the risk of the employment. The employer is required to secure the compensation provided by the act (1) by insuring the payment of the same in the state accident fund; (2) by insuring the payments in any stock corporation or mutual association authorized to transact the business of workmen's compensation insurance in the state; or, (3) if he does not voluntarily adopt one of the above methods, by furnishing the commission with satisfactory proof of his ability to pay such compensation, and depositing, when required to do so, with the commission securities in an

101 A. 712

amount to be determined by the commission, to secure his liability. Provision is made for the establishment of a fund called the state accident fund, to insure employers against liability, and payment to employes and their dependents of the compensation specified. A great number of employments are specified as extrahazardous, and the act is made to apply to all other extrahazardous employments. Compensation is allowed for temporary and permanent and for partial and total disability according to the schedule contained in the act, and provision is made for compensation to dependents where the injury results in the death of the employe. An appeal is allowed from the decision of the commission to the circuit courts or the common-law courts of Baltimore city by an employer, employe, beneficiary, or person feeling aggrieved by such decision; and provision is made for trial by jury in the courts of issues of fact, and for the reversal or modification by the court of the decision of the commission, in accordance with the law and facts, and for a further appeal from the judgment of the circuit court or common-law court of Baltimore city to this court.

All of the questions raised by the demurrer, except the two to which we shall hereafter refer, are so fully covered by recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and by a recent decision of this court, that it would be useless to undertake a further discussion of them here.

We have frequently said that "the law of the land," in the Constitution of this state, and "due process of law," in the Constitution of the United States, mean the...