Towers v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1940
• Docket Number: 45200.
• Parties: TOWERS v. WATSON BROS. TRANSP. CO. et al. PIEART v. SAME.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

294 N.W. 594

229 Iowa 387

TOWERS v. WATSON BROS. TRANSP. CO. et al.

PIEART v. SAME.

No. 45200.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

November 12, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; H. D. Evans, Judge.

This is an appeal from an award allowing compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1939, § 1361 et seq. Opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

Miller, Huebner & Miller, of Des Moines, for appellants.

Havner, Flick & Powers, F. L. Galpin, and Margaret I Cunningham, all of Des Moines, for appellees.

MITCHELL, Justice.

Glenn D. Towers filed an application for arbitration in the office of the Iowa Industrial Commissioner in which he alleged that he received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment at Iowa City, Iowa, on the 17th day of December 1937, resulting in certain specified disabilities.

He alleged that the defendant, Watson Brothers Transportation Company, Inc., is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the State of Iowa, and engaged in the transportation of freight for hire. That the defendant, Employers Mutual Casualty Company, carried the workmen's compensation insurance. That he was employed by Watson Brothers together with his helper, Le Roy O. Pieart, " to operate a truck under said employer's interstate permit and under its state permit in the States of Iowa and Illinois and while so in their employ was to transport a cargo for said employer under its permit to Chicago and to transport a cargo from Chicago to Des Moines" . He alleged that while enroute back from Chicago to Des Moines in accordance with his employment, the truck, on account of the icy conditions of the road, slid off the road, and as a result he received personal injuries resulting in disability.

Defendants filed a general denial and in addition alleged that at the time of said accident, claimant was engaged in interstate commerce, and that the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act would not be applicable. The defendants' answer also alleged that Towers was an independent contractor, and that he was not an employee of the defendant, Watson Brothers, within the meaning of the Iowa Compensation Act. The case was first tried as an arbitration action before the Deputy Industrial Commissioner, sitting as the sole arbitrator and on the 14th day of May, 1938, he rendered a decision awarding compensation to claimant. The case was reviewed before the Industrial Commissioner, who rendered a decision affirming the Deputy Commissioner's award. The defendants appealed to the District Court of Johnson County, and the Honorable H. D. Evans, one of the judges of said court, affirmed the findings of facts and award of the Industrial Commissioner and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendants have appealed to this court.

This is a workmen's compensation case and this court has rightly said on many occasions that the workmen's compensation act is to have a broad and liberal construction in aid of accomplishing the object of the enactment. With this thought in mind we turn to the record in this case.

In a very lengthy and able argument, appellants urged upon us the contention that because claimant was engaged in interstate commerce, that the act does not apply. The evidence shows that Towers was hired in Iowa, his contract of employment was an Iowa contract. He was told that Watson Brothers had insurance that would fully cover him. He was injured within the border of this state.

This court in the case of Pierce v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 185 Iowa 1346, on page 1354, 172 N.W. 191, on page 193, said: " In other words, it can be conceded that as a law the compensation statute is not to be effective in other states. But such concession will not meet the position that, even if the statute is not law in another state, yet, with the statute read into the contract, there is an enforceable contract to be paid according to the statute, though the injury be suffered outside of the state. And it will be found that, in cases wherein it is affirmed that there can be no recovery because the statute has no extraterritorial effect, the distinction was overlooked that a statute which is a law only within the state may be so read into a contract of hiring as that compensation according to the terms of the statute may be recovered, though the injury was sustained in a jurisdiction in which said statute was not effective as a law."

In the Pierce case the employee was hired by a moving van company located in Sioux City and when he was injured he was in the process of hauling a load of furniture from Nebraska back to Iowa.

In the case of Cullamore v. Groneweg & Schoentgen, 219 Iowa 200, 257 N.W. 561, 562, speaking through Justice Stevens this court said: " Compensation laws of comparatively recent application in this state were enacted to accomplish certain and definite purposes. They comprehend an enlarged and better relationship-a relationship out of which each of the respective parties obtain more or less mutual and reciprocal benefits. The Legislature has not seen fit to limit the scope and effect of our compensation statutes within state boundaries. It could do this or it could give them wider application. The latter could be made so by contract. The deceased employee carried on his employment in Nebraska, making the necessary reports and visits to his employer for the benefits and profit of the employer's business. The question is not whether a decision one way or the other will be more convenient or profitable to the employee. The statutes must be interpreted and construed according to their purpose, meaning, and intent. It is significant that the Legislature has seen fit to provide that ‘ If the injury occurred outside this state the hearings of the board shall be held in the county seat of this state which is nearest to the place where the injury occurred. * * *’ Section 1440, Code of 1931. The act itself, therefore, recognizes that compensation is to be available to an employee notwithstanding the injuries are received in some other jurisdiction. There is no question but what the injuries in the present instance arose out of and in the course of the employment. We are...