Title: Burr v. Childs

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

1 Utah 2d 199 (1953) 265 P.2d 383 BURR ET AL. v. CHILDS. No. 8059. Supreme Court of Utah. December 30, 1953. Dean N. Clayton, David S. Kunz, Ogden, for appellant. George S. Ballif, Provo, for respondent. WOLFE, Chief Justice. Class action against defendant Ralph E. Childs for recovery of wages allegedly required by Utah Code Anno. 1953, 34-12-2 to 34-12-10, under a contract for public works. Defendant was awarded the contract for construction of the Union High School at Roosevelt, Utah. Plaintiffs' complaint contains the following allegations: A prayer for relief follows the foregoing allegations. The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether plaintiffs' complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. The lower court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on that ground and plaintiffs' appeal. Defendant contends that the action is grounded on a statute; that Utah Code Anno. 1953, 34-12-2 to 34-12-10 prescribe certain conditions vital to the cause of action; that plaintiffs have failed to set forth these conditions in their complaint and therefore they have failed to state a cause of action. The specific instances wherein defendant contends the complaint is erroneous will follow the pertinent statutory provisions: Defendant first contends that Section 34-12-2 requires the specific allegation that plaintiffs are "laborers, workmen and mechanics". We think the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint that "plaintiffs were employed by the defendant and worked on the construction of the Union High School" and in paragraph 4 that a copy of the "prevailing wage rate for carpenters" is attached to the complaint, sufficient to classify plaintiffs as persons protected by the statute. Defendant maintains that the complaint must show that the public body awarding the contract included in "the call for bids for said contract and in the contract itself" a schedule of the prevailing wage rates. We do not agree. The provisions of Section 34-12-2 require payment of the prevailing wage rate to employees on public works. While subsequent statutory provisions, Sections 34-12-3 and 34-12-4, outline the procedure to ascertain the prevailing wage rate and provide for inclusion of the rate in public works contracts, it is to be assumed that the public body has discharged its duty and that the public works contract contains the necessary provisions. Hence, any such allegation in a complaint brought by employees protected by the statute would be redundant. Further, even if the public works contract failed to contain a clause requiring payment of the prevailing wage rate, indeed, assuming the agreement between the public body and the contractor attempted to avoid the statute, we cannot see how the rights of employees under Section 34-12-2 could be prejudiced. This provision becomes a part of every contract for public works, a necessary conclusion if the state is to have an effective statute. It must be remembered that the minimum wage law was passed for the benefit of labor and the protection of society in general, and the purpose of maintaining living standards should be considered in construing the law. A technical and restrictive interpretation is not in keeping with the purposes which the legislature intended to accomplish. Defendant next contends that the complaint must specifically set forth the wages actually paid and show where the wages are lower than the prevailing rate published by the Industrial Commission. We think the allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint that defendant "failed to pay * * * the prevailing wage rate and failed to pay said employees for all hours worked by said employees over 40 hours per week as provided by said statute" is sufficient to notify defendant of the nature of the claim. Under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, for the most part taken from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleader is required only to make a short and plain statement of his claim, U.R.C.P., Rule 8(a), and the requirement of technical exactness is excluded. Fine detail is not required. Porter v. Shoemaker, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 438. 10 Fed.Rules Service, 8 A. 25, p. 51. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 388, 91 L. Ed. 451, Mr. Justice Murphy, discussing the Federal rules, said: The deficiencies suggested by defendant impliedly acknowledge a full understanding of the nature of plaintiffs' claim, the main objection being that plaintiffs did not adhere to the technical features of the statute. In support of the contention that the statute requires a tedious recital of statutory language, and not a crisp statement of ultimate facts as required by U.R.C.P., Rule 8(a), defendant cites the case of Hamilton v. Salt Lake City, 99 Utah 362, 106 P.2d 1028, where the plaintiff commenced an action against Salt Lake City for damages for personal injuries. The controlling statutes were Utah Code Ann. 10-7-77 and 10-7-78, which required adherence to certain procedural steps as a condition to recovery. Failure to set forth compliance with the procedural steps in the complaint was, as stated in Section 10-7-78, "a sufficient bar and answer" to the action. We find no such conditions in the statutes now before the court, and it is our judgment that defendant has been apprised of the charge against him by pleadings which consider the necessary facts. The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Costs to the appellants. McDONOUGH, CROCKETT, HENRIOD, and WADE, JJ., concur.