State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Com'n of Colo.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1936
• Docket Number: 13947.
• Citation: 98 Colo. 563,58 P.2d 759
• Parties: STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

58 P.2d 759

98 Colo. 563

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.

No. 13947.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 8, 1936

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W Steele, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lars Nerim administrator of the estate of Ira Nerim, deceased, and others, claimants, opposed by W. A. Ellis, Inc., employer and the State Compensation Insurance Fund, insurance carrier. The district court affirmed the Industrial Commission's award of compensation, and the employer and the insurance carrier bring error.

Judgment of the district court affirmed.

Harold Clark Thompson, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Paul P. Prosser, Atty. Gen., and Louis Schiff Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission.

Leo J. Crowley, of Denver, for defendants in error Lars Nerim and others.

BURKE Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case, and the sole question is: Did the accident arise out of and in the course of deceased's employment?

The State Compensation Insurance Fund is hereinafter referred to as the fund; W. A. Ellis, Inc., as the company, the Industrial Commission of Colorado, as the commission; the other defendants in error, as claimants; and Ira Nerim, deceased, as Nerim.

The company, which carried its industrial insurance with the fund, operated a mine near Alma, Colo. Deceased was there employed by it, and he and some of his companions were sleeping in its bunkhouse. During the night this building caught fire, and therein Nerim incurred the burns which caused his death. Claim was made for compensation under the act and allowed by the referee and the commission. To review that award this action was instituted in the district court, whose judgment affirmed it. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted. It is said in the brief of plaintiffs in error that the exact question here involved has not been decided in this jurisdiction and that other cases growing out of the same accident await the decision of this.

The general rule is admittedly stated in 71 C.J. § 437, p. 695. The particular fact which it is contended excludes this case from its operation is that while deceased was obliged as a condition of his employment to sleep in the bunkhouse, board and room there were not furnished by the company, but he was charged $1.25 per day therefor.

The commission...