State ex rel. Chambers v. Dist. Court

• Decision Date: 11 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20728.,20728.
• Citation: 139 Minn. 205,166 N.W. 185
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CHAMBERS et al. v. DISTRICT COURT, HENNEPIN COUNTY et al.

139 Minn. 205

166 N.W. 185

STATE ex rel. CHAMBERS et al.

v.DISTRICT COURT, HENNEPIN COUNTY et al.

No. 20728.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 11, 1918.

Original writ of certiorari in Supreme Court by the State, on relation of Lena Chambers and others, to review a judgment of the District Court, Hennepin County, and others, denying relator compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Judgment reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

The Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913C, 84a) is elective. By becoming subject to it the meployer and employé agree that the employer will pay and the employé receive for an accidental injury the compensation fixed by the statute and that the employé will forego his common-law right of action. It is not important who is at fault or whether any one is. The right to compensation is not based on tort. It is contractual. The relator's husband was a resident of North Dakota. He entered into a contract of employment with a Minnesota corporation doing a grain brokerage business in Minnesota and having its place of business in Minneapolis and so far as appears none elsewhere. The contract was made there. It contemplated that he should solicit business for the corporation in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere. An automobile was furnished him for use in his work. While using it in the course of his employment it accidentally overturned at a point in North Dakota and he was killed. Under these facts it is held that the Minnesota compensation act is applicable and an award of compensation should be made.

The writ of certiorari does not bring to this court for review orders in a compensation proceeding not in their nature appealable. It does not lie to review an order for judgment on the pleadings, for such an order is not in its nature appealable. It lies to review the judgment entered pursuant to such an order. McNamara & Waters, of St. Paul, for relator.

John F. Bernhagen, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

DIBELL, C.

Certiorari to the district court of Hennepin county to review a judgment denying the relator compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of her husband.

[1] 1. Judgment was entered on the pleadings on motion of the defendant employer. The facts stated in the complaint, which we are to take as established, are substantially these: The relator's husband was a resident of North Dakota. He was employed by C. C. Wyman & Co., a Minnesota corporation doing a general grain brokerage business in Minnesota and having its place of business in Minneapolis. It does not appear that it had a business situs elsewhere. The contract of employment was made in Minneapolis. It contemplated the rendition of services by the deceased in soliciting business in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere. The company furnished him an automobile which he used in performing such services. While he was in North Dakota on May 5, 1917, the automobile was accidentally overturned and he was killed. The accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.

The question is whether with the facts as stated the motion of the employer for judgment on the pleadings was rightly granted. Liability would be conceded had the accident happened in Minnesota. The claim of the employer is that compensation cannot be awarded for an accident occurring outside the state.

The Minnesota compensation act provides for elective compensation. G. S. 1913, § 8202, et seq.; Mathison v. Minneapolis, etc., Co., 126 Minn. 286, 148 N. W. 71, L. R. A. 1916D, 412. The employer and employé become subject to the act only by agreement express or implied. If they elect to become subject to it they in effect contract that the employé shall receive and the employer will apy the statutory compensation for all accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment and the employé waives his common-law right of action. It is unimportant whether the cause of the accident is referable to a tortious or a blameless act, or whether if tortious the employer or some third person is blameworthy, or even that the employé is at fault, if not willfully so. The statute requires compensation of the employer, when the employer and employé have elected to become subject to the act, ‘in every case of personal injury or death of his employé, caused by accident, arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to the question of negligence, except accidents which are intentionally self-inflicted or when the intoxication of such employé is the natural or proximate cause of the injury. * * *’ G. S. 1913, § 8203. The statute evidences no affirmative purpose to restrict the operation of the contract to accidental injuries happening within the state. That a statute might make such limitation expressly is clear; or the wording of it might require such construction by way of proper inference.

In Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Indiana and New Jersey, under varying statutes and with facts changing from case to case, it is held that compensation may be awarded for an injury occurring outside the state. Kennerson v. Thomas Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 367, 94 Atl. 372, L. R. A. 1916A, 436;Post v. Burger, 216 N. Y. 544, 111 N. E. 351, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 158;Grinnell v. Wilkinson, 39 R. I. 447, 98 Atl. 103;Gooding v. Ott, 77 W. Va. 487, 87 S. E. 862, L. R. A. 1916D, 637;Hagenback v. Lepper (Ind. App.) 117 N. E. 531;Rounsaville v. Central R. Co., 87 N. J. Law, 371, 94 Atl. 392. And see Foley v. Home Rubber Co., 89 N. J. Law, 474, 99 Atl. 624, where the right to compensation was tacitly conceded. Massachusetts and California are opposed. Gould's Case, 215 Mass. 480, 102 N. E. 693, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 372;North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury (Cal.) 162 Pac. 93, L. R. A. 1917E, 642. And so are the English cases. Tomalin v. Pearson, [1909] 2 K. B. 61, 2 B. W. C. C. 1; Schwartz v. India Rubber, etc., Co., [1912] 2 K. B. 299, 5 B. W. C. C. 390; Hicks v. Maxton, 124 L. T. J. 135, 1 B. W. C. C. 150. The cases are collected and discussed in the treatises and annotated cases. 1 Honnold,...