Steagall v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.
Decision Date | 16 December 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 177 |
Parties | STEAGALL v. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by Sallie Steagall against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company for damages for the death of Alpha Steagall deceased, while in the employ of the defendant corporation. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Tillman Bradley & Morrow, and W.M. Rogers, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
This was an action brought by the administratrix of a deceased employee against his employer seeking to recover damages for the death of the decedent under our Employee's Act (section 3910 of the Code of 1907); the death having occurred in March, 1920, after the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1919, p. 209, became effective on, to wit, January 1, 1920. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the complaint and the plaintiff appeals, and the sole question to be determined is whether or not the plaintiff should, by averment in her complaint, show that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not apply, by averring facts showing that the deceased was not within the influence of same because belonging to one of the classes excepted therefrom or whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Act should be invoked by the defendant as defensive matter by an appropriate plea.
An examination of the complaint shows that it states facts bringing it within section 1 of the act of the Legislature of Alabama approved August 23, 1919, known as the Workmen's Compensation Act. This section provides as follows:
Section 38 of this same act provides that it shall take effect from and after the 1st day of January, 1920.
It will be readily seen that this paragraph relates to all injuries resulting from and accidents sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The act, in such cases, provides two remedies; one under part 1 provides for compensation by action at law, and defines the parties who can bring such action, the cases in which it can be brought, and the defenses which may be made thereto by the employer; part 2 provides for elective compensation, and an employer who has elected to come under part 2 is not liable for an action brought under part 1. The two remedies provided by this act are exclusive in all cases covered by the act.
The rights and remedies therein granted exclude all other rights and remedies.
Acts 1919, p. 209.
See, also, Penn's Adm'r v. Bates & Rogers Construction Co., 183 Ky. 529, 209 S.W. 513, L.R.A.1916A, 220.
The courts will take judicial knowledge of the statute, which dispenses with necessity of allegation thereof, and the mere allegation of a state of facts making it applicable suffices. Louis v. Smith-McCormick Construction Co., 80 W.Va. 159, 92 S.E. 249.
The act provides, by way of exception, that it shall not apply (1) to any common carrier (doing interstate business) while engaged in interstate commerce, or to domestic servants, farm laborers, or persons whose employment at the time of the injury is casual and is not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the employer; (2) or to any employer who regularly employs less than 16 employees in any one business; (3) or to any county, city, town, village, or school district. Section 8, Acts of 1919, p. 208.
As to the first and third exceptions, the facts alleged in the complaint negative any inference that the defendant belongs to one of these excepted classes, as it is alleged therein that it is a corporation, and was engaged in mining ore in Jefferson county, Ala., at the time.
In Dunaway v. Austin Street R. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 195 S.W. 1157, it was held that it was not incumbent upon the complainant to plead that the employer was in the excepted class; that it was an affirmative defense to be alleged by the employer.
In Illinois Central R. Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 267, 119 N.E. 920, where the employer was engaged both in interstate and intrastate commerce, it was held that it was incumbent upon it to show the fact that the work being done at the time of the injury was in interstate commerce.
The plaintiff having failed to allege any fact bringing the defendant within one of the excepted classes, the facts stated make out a cause of action exclusively within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The act itself provides two remedies: First, an action at law under part one; second, a claim for compensation under part 2.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bunner v. Patti
... ... Bancroft Realty Co., 150 N.E. 511; ... Dresser v. New Hampshire Steel Co., 4 N.E.2d 1012; ... McEvilly v. Meyers, 211 Ky. 231, 276 S.W ... Ingenito, 282 Pa. 124, 127 A. 470; ... Erie City Iron Works v. Ferer, 263 S.W. 1008; ... Elkins v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., ... General Box Co. v. Mo. Utilities Co., 55 S.W.2d 442; ... Steagall v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 87 So ... 787; Succession of ... ...
-
Warren v. Am. Car & Foundry Co.
...Buffum v. Woolworth Co., 273 S.W. 176; Russell v. Railroad Co., 83 Mo. 307; Kemper v. Gluck, 21 S.W. (2d) 922; Steagall v. Steel & Iron Co., 205 Ala. 100, 87 So. 787; Kaplan v. Sertell, 217 Ala. 413, 116 So. 112; Gunnoe v. Coal Co., 93 W. Va. 636, 117 S.E. 484; Byrd v. Sabine Collieries Cor......
-
Warren v. American Car & Foundry Co.
... ... Co., 83 Mo. 307; Kemper v. Gluck, 21 S.W.2d ... 922; Steagall v. Steel & Iron Co., 205 Ala. 100, 87 ... So. 787; Kaplan v. Sertell, ... ...
-
Kemper v. Gluck
...v. Schaff, 293 Mo. 333, 240 S.W. 124; Morris v. Muldoon, 190 A.D. 689, 180 N.Y.S. 319; Kaplan v. Sertel, 116 So. 112; Steagall v. Steel & Iron Co., 205 Ala. 100, 87 So. 787; Reynolds Ry. Co. (Ill.), 122 N.E. 371. This court would only have jurisdiction for the purpose of reversing the judgm......