Workmen's Compensation Exchange v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PR CO.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 1143.,1143.
• Citation: 45 F.2d 885
• Parties: WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EXCHANGE et al. v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

45 F.2d 885 (1930)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EXCHANGE et al. v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R. CO.

No. 1143.

District Court, D. Idaho, N. D.

December 17, 1930.

Ralph S. Nelson and E. R. Whitla, both of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for plaintiffs.

F. M. Dudley, I. B. Crawford, and A. J. Laughon, all of Seattle, Wash., and Wm. D. Keeton, of St. Maries, Idaho, for defendant.

CAVANAH, District Judge.

Mike Honig, an employee of the Edward Rutledge Timber Company, was killed July 12, 1929, while in the course of his employment caused by a collision between a truck driven by him and a passenger train operated by the defendant at a crossing near the plant of the Blackwell Lumber Company. On November 15, 1929, Mable Honig, wife of deceased, for herself and as guardian of the estate of Dorothy Doris Honig, a minor child of deceased, and plaintiff Florence Honig Galster, as guardian of the estate of Marjorie Honig and Christine Alice Honig, also minor children of the deceased, filed claims for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board of the state against the timber company and the Workmen's Compensation Exchange, which resulted in the allowance of an award against the plaintiffs timber company and exchange for the sum of $8,189.39. Plaintiff exchange, under the laws of the state, had executed a policy of workmen's compensation insurance for the plaintiff timber company, and is paying the award to the beneficiaries. In the investigation of the claims, and prosecution of this action, the exchange asserts that it will incur as expenses and costs, the sum of $3,200.

The chief contentions urged by defendant on its demurrer and motion to strike, and in its brief, are that no right of action exists in favor of any of the plaintiffs against it, and if so there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff as the only proper party plaintiff is the employer timber company, and further in any event the amount of $3,200 claimed for costs and expenses, incurred by the plaintiff Exchange, cannot be recovered under section 6220 of the Compiled Statutes of Idaho.

In the consideration of these questions we are confronted with certain provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state, wherein the state has abolished all civil actions and civil causes of action for personal injuries, except as therein provided, as the Legislature has said, by section 6214, C. S., that, "The state of Idaho, therefore, exercising herein its police and sovereign power, declares that all phases of the premises are withdrawn from private controversy, and sure certain relief for injured workmen and their families and dependents is hereby provided regardless of questions of fault and to the exclusion of every other remedy, proceeding or compensation, except as is otherwise provided in this chapter, and to that end all civil actions and civil causes of action for such personal injuries, and all jurisdiction of the courts of the state over such causes are hereby abolished, except as is in this chapter provided." And by section 6219, C. S., that, "the rights and remedies herein granted to an employee on account of a personal injury for which he is entitled to compensation under this chapter shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury." It would seem clear from the provisions of the statutes quoted that their purpose was to withdraw from private controversy all rights and remedies, either at common law or otherwise, and to insure a remedy and certain relief for injured workmen and their families to the exclusion of all other remedies, and whenever injuries are received by a workman, and he and his dependents accept the benefits of the award made under the statute, they are precluded from asserting any claim or instituting any action against the employer who pays or becomes obligated to pay such an award under the statute. But they are not, by the statute, in case of a third person causing an injury, precluded from electing to either claim compensation under the statute or to proceed at law against such third person to recover damages.

Pursuing then the further contention that there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, we find that section 6220, C. S., treats of the liability of third persons and creates a right of action in favor of an employer, who, having paid compensation or having become liable therefor, may be subrogated to the rights of the injured employee to recover against such third person, and in case of a recovery by the employer from such third person, damages in excess of the compensation awarded to be paid shall be paid to the injured employee, less the employer's expenses and costs of action. The section provides:

"When an injury for which compensation is payable under this chapter shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other...