Omaha daily bee., 1921-12-19
Compensation Bulletin
Some Cases That Warn
Workmen as TO Danger.
(By Frank A. Kennedy. Secretary Of Labor and
Compensation Commissioner.)


Lincoln, Neb, Dee l4-This bulletin Is Is
sued 10 warn the workers OF the state agains,
being mised into bringing common law suits
ior damages following injuries while al work
The following cases are cited TO more definitely
illustrate the danger OF taking chances under
common law rather than accepting sure thing
under the compensation law;
In January, 1918, Henry Duhrkopf was Sc
vercly burned by an electric wire while moving
q house Tor contractor named Brown IN Ian,
caster county. As result OF this accident Duhr,
kopf lost one hand and one foot Under the
compensation law at that time he was entitled
10 receive Sl2 each week for 800 weeks and 81
each week for the balance OF his life Instead
OF coming under the compensation law, the in
jured man was prevailed upon to accept $1,000
from his direct employer and then sued the
owner Of the house for S35000 under common
law. He lost the suit under common law, and
the statute OF limitation, under the compensation
law, had ran against him. He lost clear cut
compensation claim that would have netted him
$1,000 during the first 800 weeks, and $ll 700 he
would have received during life expectancy OF
Is years This is one case.
Here is another: A Mrs. MCGOWAN was in
iured while working for the Omaha Athletic club.
Instead OF coming under the compensation law,
Mrs. MCGOWAN was prevailed upon to sue under
common law, claiming that domestic servants
were exempt from the provisions OF the COM
she was domestic servant and did not come
under compensation law. The district court held
that pantry woman in hotel was not do
mestic servant, but rather was regular employe
under the compensation law The case was ap-
pealed TO the supreme court and that body sus-
tained the decision of the lower court We do
not know how serious an injury Mrs McGowan
sustained, but we do know she lost her damage
suit and received nothing under the compensa-
ton law, because the statute of limitation ran
against her when she got through studying law.
Here is still another case: Tony Bullock was
employed in 1919 by nursery at Arlington, Neb
The employer carried compensation insurance to
protect himself and his employees in case of in
jury Bullock was driving team that was work.
ing around windlass pulling stumps. The double
tree snapped and part of it flew back, striking
Bullock on the leg, between the hip and knee.
The leg was broken and after healing he had a
50 per cent loss of the use Of his leg. He ac-
cepted compensation for six months, and then a
Fremont lawyer prevailed upon him to refuse
further compensation and sue for big damages.
The commissioner made two trips to Fremont
and plead with the young man to stick to the
compensation law and not take any chances
with "a common law suit. The case went to a
hearing before the district court at Blair last
week, and the Judge decided he was estopped
from suing under common law after he had
accepted payments under the compensation law.
I1c CdUHOl sue uHutl tilc compensation idW HOW,
because the statute of limitation against him.
He lost $l,3l2,5O by refusing to accept COM
pensation and lost his common law suit.
A workingman who does not wish to be
bound by the provisions of the compensation law
may do so by filing with the department of labor
a written election not to be bound by the law.
If he does not do that then he is bound by the
law, if the employer carries compensation insur-
arce covering his employees.
The compensation department of the state re-
quests the workers who learn the contents of
this bulletin to warn injured men and women
not to make the mistake made by the parties
mentioned above