Wilson v. Smith
| Decision Date | 19 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 14875. |
| Citation | 110 Colo. 68,130 P.2d 1053 |
| Parties | WILSON et al. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1942.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W Steele, Judge.
Action by James L. Wilson, and the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado, against C. E. Smith and the Denver Tramway Corporation, to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered by James L. Wilson in a collision between an automobile in which he was riding and a street car of the Denver Tramway Corporation which was operated by C. E. Smith. To review a judgment of dismissal, James L. Wilson brings error.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with direction that plaintiffs' demurrer be sustained.
W. D. McClain and Edwin A. Williams both of Denver for plaintiff in error James L. Wilson.
W. A Alexander and Donald B. Robertson both of Denver, for defendants in error.
The parties appear here in the same relative positions as in the trial court and will be designated as there or by name.
The controversy hinges upon the construction of section 366 chapter 97, '35 C. S. A., which, in so far as here pertinent, provides: * * *'
Plaintiff Wilson, a Denver police officer, while acting in the scope and course of his employment, sustained serious injuries as the result of a collision between a police ambulance, in which he was riding, and a street car of defendant tramway corporation operated by defendant Smith. About a month after the accident, Wilson elected in writing to claim the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act, following which the Industrial Commission awarded compensation to him from the State Compensation Insurance Fund in the sum of $3,764.75 payable in due course. Subsequent to this award, and payment of a portion thereof, Wilson and the Industrial Commission, joining as plaintiffs, instituted the action--the judgment in which is the subject of this review--to recover damages from defendants in the sum of $28,000 for the injuries allegedly suffered by Wilson in the above mentioned collision which it was said was occasioned by the negligence of defendants. It is further alleged that by virtue of Wilson's election, and the award of compensation to him, the Industrial Commission was subrogated to his rights against defendants to the extent of the award, under the provisions of section 366, supra, in pursuance of which the commission joined with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley
...third party tort-feasors is not intended to be disturbed by the Act. Riss & Co. v. Anderson, 108 Colo. 78, 114 P.2d 278; Wilson v. Smith, 110 Colo. 68, 130 P.2d 1053; Hartquist v. Tamiami Trails Tours, 139 Fla. 328, 190 So. 533; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Keith, 89 Ind.App. 233, 146 N.E. ......
-
Drake v. Hodges
... ... King v. O. P. Baur Confectionery Co., 100 Colo. 528, ... 68 P.2d 909; Riss & Co. v. Anderson, 108 Colo. 78, ... 114 P.2d 278; Wilson v. Smith, 110 Colo. 68, 130 ... P.2d 1053; Donley v. Denver & Salt Lake R. R. Co., ... 111 Colo. 358, 141 P.2d 899. Concededly, this right inures ... ...
-
Jacobson v. Doan, 17927
...and is not entitled to recover for benefits (hospital, doctor and surgical expenses) paid. (All emphasis supplied.) In Wilson v. Smith, 110 Colo. 68, 130 P.2d 1053, 1054, this court, in construing 81-13-8, '* * * in the event of a recovery from defendants for the wrong alleged, the commissi......
-
Krueger v. Merriman Elec.
...Act do not preclude the injured employee from bringing an action against a third party tort-feasor. He is a proper party. Wilson v. Smith, 110 Colo. 68, 130 P.2d 1053. Further, in Drake v. Hodges, 114 Colo. 10, 161 P.2d 338, the Supreme Court held it to be settled beyond dispute that an inj......