State ex rel. Carlson v. Dist. Court of Hennepin Cnty., 19537[205].
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | BUNN |
| Citation | 154 N.W. 661,131 Minn. 96 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CARLSON v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY. |
| Docket Number | No. 19537[205].,19537[205]. |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1915 |
131 Minn. 96
154 N.W. 661
STATE ex rel. CARLSON
v.
DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY.
No. 19537[205].
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Nov. 5, 1915.
Certiorari from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by the widow, to obtain compensation for the death of Charles J. Rapley, opposed by Gustave A. Carlson, the defendant employer. Compensation was awarded by the District Court of Hennepin County, and the State, on the relation of said Carlson, brings certiorari. Order affirmed.
The right of action to recover compensation for the death of an employé, given by the Workmen's Compensation Act, Gen. St. 1913, § 8208, as amended by Laws 1915, c. 209, is a new and distinct right of action created by the death.
[154 N.W. 661]
Olof L. Bruce, of Minneapolis, for relator.
Robertson & Bonner, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
BUNN, J.
Certiorari to review an order of the district court in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover compensation for the death of Charles J. Rapley. Rapley was in the employ of defendant Carlson. On the morning of June 30, 1915, while engaged in the performance of the duties of his employment, he suffered an injury from the effects of which he died at about 1:30 a. m. on the morning of July 1st. Laws 1915, c. 209, by its terms went into effect July 1, 1915. It increased the maximum and minimum compensation in case of death, and provided that the employer should pay the expense of last sickness and burial, not exceeding $100 in amount. This provision was not in the prior law. The trial court held that plaintiff, the widow of the deceased workman, who sued in her own behalf and as mother of her minor children, was entitled to recover under the law in force on the day Rapley died. Relator contends that the law in force on the day he was injured governs.
The trial court was right. The claim of plaintiff for compensation does not arise from the injury to her husband, but is a new and distinct right of action created by his death. Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42, 99 N. W. 357,104 Am. St. Rep. 665;Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, 57 L. Ed. 417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176;American R. Co. v. Didricksen, 227 U. S. 145, 33 Sup. Ct. 224, 57 L. Ed. 456.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cline v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 107
...Co., 67 Idaho 111, 170 P.2d 611 (Idaho); Hirsch v. Hirsch Bros., 97 N.H. 480, 92 A.2d 402; State ex rel Carlson v. District Court, 131 Minn. 96, 154 N.W. 661; 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation, Section 130; 58 Am.Jur. Workmen's Compensation, Section 301; Annotation, 82 A.L.R. 1244. These cas......
-
Peterson v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co., 7294
...the Act. Kunst v. General Bronze Corporation et al., 1942, 264 A.D. 494, 35 N.Y.S.2d 878; State ex rel. Carlson v. District Court, 1915, 131 Minn. 96, 154 N.W. 661; Messnick v. Kahn Bros. et al., 1932, 235 A.D. 114, 256 N.Y.S. 281; Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Kamrath, 1928, 118 Ohio St......
-
Brownfield v. Southern Amusement Co., Inc., 35779
...have received from him if he had lived. Dependents are given no rights except where death results from the injury. State ex Minn. 96, 154 N.W. 661. As the death of Mr. Tierney did not result from the injury, it is conceded that the relator has no claim under the provision for dependents. * ......
-
State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Dickerson, 33386
...of his death, the amount recoverable is governed by the law in force at the time of death. See State ex rel. Carlson v. District Court, 131 Minn. 96, 154 N.W. 661; Warner v. Zaiser, 184 Minn. 598, 239 N.W. 761; Donoho v. Atlantic Basin Iron Works, 210 App.Div. 535, 206 N.Y.S. In the case of......