Tierney v. Tierney & Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | 27,189 |
| Citation | 223 N.W. 773,176 Minn. 464 |
| Parties | ANN F. TIERNEY v. TIERNEY & COMPANY AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari upon the relation of Ann F. Tierney to review an order of the industrial commission denying her the unpaid portion of compensation awarded her husband, which he would have received had he lived, for injuries received by him while in the employ of Tierney & Company. Affirmed.
When dependents of a workman are entitled to compensation for his injury.
1. The dependents of a workman are entitled to compensation only where he sustains a compensable injury and dies therefrom.
Death of a workman from an injury terminates all rights to compensation to accrue in the future.
2. The death of a workman while receiving compensation for an injury terminates all rights to the compensation to accrue to him thereafter.
See note in 15 A.L.R. 821; 24 A.L.R. 441; 29 A.L.R. 1426; 51 A.L.R. 1446; 28 R.C.L. 782; 4 R.C.L. Supp. 1851; 5 R.C.L Supp. 1563; 6 R.C.L. Supp. 1754; 7 R.C.L. Supp. 1003.
O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, for relator.
Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, for Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, respondent insurer.
Thomas Tierney sustained an accidental injury which resulted in the total loss of one eye and was entitled to receive as compensation therefor $20 per week for a period of 100 weeks. He received this allowance until his death 13 weeks later. His death did not result from the injury but from an entirely different cause. He left surviving him his wife, Ann Tierney, who was wholly dependent upon him and is his sole heir, and was appointed special administratrix of his estate. She presented a petition in the three capacities asking that she be awarded the compensation of $20 per week for the remaining 87 weeks to which her husband would have been entitled if he had lived. The industrial commission disallowed the claim, and a writ of certiorari brings the matter before this court.
Although the rights and obligations created by the compensation law are of a contractual nature in the sense that the law is not compulsory and applies only where both parties see fit to come under it, yet the rights granted and the obligations imposed rest upon the statute and are limited to those granted or imposed by it.
The statute creates two distinct rights -- one for the benefit of the workman, the other for the benefit of his dependents. To the workman it gives compensation for disability caused by injuries sustained while in the performance of his duties. This is intended as compensation to him for loss of earnings. To his dependents it gives compensation for his death if caused by the injury. This is intended as compensation for loss of the support which they would have received from him if he had lived. Dependents are given no rights except where death results from the injury. State ex rel. Carlson v. District Court, 131 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.
The question presented is whether the right of a workman to receive a specified amount weekly for a specified period as compensation for an injury terminates at his death, where he dies before the expiration of the period from causes other than the injury, or whether it survives for the benefit of either his estate or his dependents. The statute makes no specific provision for such a case, and the question has not previously been presented to this court. However it has been before other courts frequently, and the cases in which it has been considered are collected in annotations found in 15 A.L.R. 821; 24 A.L.R. 441; 29 A.L.R. 1426; and 51 A.L.R. 1446.
The decisions are apparently conflicting, but the apparent conflict is due mainly to differences in the provisions of the various statutes. Those holding that the right survives are usually based on some special provision of a particular statute. The majority of courts hold that the compensation provided for by such statutes is for the benefit of the workman and his dependents as compensation for loss of wages, and is not intended for the benefit of heirs or creditors, and does not survive the death of the beneficiary as an asset of his estate in the absence of a provision indicating that such was the legislative intention....
To continue reading
Request your trial