Title: Addison v. Tessier
Citation: 305 P.2d 1067, 62 N.M. 120
Docket Number: 6112
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 1957

305 P.2d 1067 (1957) 62 N.M. 120 Marvin E. ADDISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George D. TESSIER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 6112. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 10, 1957. Rehearing Denied January 31, 1957. *1068 Martin A. Threet, Albuquerque, for appellant. Joseph L. Smith, Henry A. Kiker, Jr., Heister H. Drum, Albuquerque, for appellee. LUJAN, Chief Justice. This is an action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the district court. Plaintiff, was an employee of defendant, engaged in the manufacture, installation, erection, maintenance, repair and design of displays or signs involving the use of electric lines in conjunction with gas-filled glass-tubes, commonly known as "neon signs." He had been directed by his superior to remove a neon sign from the premises located at 815 Fourth Street, N.W., in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and while so doing, in company with another employee of defendant, several bricks from the fire wall of the building fell upon him causing him to fall from a ladder, on which he was working, to the sidewalk inflicting the injuries complained of. It is not claimed that the verdict rendered by the jury was excessive, and therefore, a statement need not be made as to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, or as to his earning capacity before the accident. Under assignments of error one and two the defendant urges that the court erred (1) in overruling his motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint; and (2) in striking his third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses, to-wit: contributory negligence, assumption of risk and want of ordinary care. *1069 Under these assignments of error defendant contends that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action, because his remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act is exclusive. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendant failed, neglected and refused to comply with the provisions of said act, including the provisions relating to insurance. The controversy has its setting in a background of law and fact. Our Workmen's Compensation Act is of an elective type. The legislature has implemented a purpose to induce employers and employees to elect to operate under its provisions by weakening the position of a rejecting employer or employee in actions wherein an employee seeks to recover damages for personal injuries or death. At the very outset we may observe that the apparently conflicting provisions of the act render the solution of the problem difficult. Defendant's theory is that all employers subject to the act are presumed to have accepted the provisions thereof; that the only method open to said employers who are subject to the act to exempt themselves from it is by filing with the clerk of the district court for the county in which such workmen are employed, a notice in writing to the effect that they elect not to accept the provisions of the act; that all employees subject to the act are conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions thereof, unless such employees have at the time or prior to entering into their contracts of hire with such employers, given notice in writing to their employer and such clerk of the district court, electing not to become subject to the provisions of the act; and that the rights and remedies given the employees are conclusive. That in the instant case the plaintiff became bound by the provisions of the act on account of his failure to give the required notice not to become subject to the act. Plaintiff's theory is that an employee is conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the act, only if his employer is subject to the provisions thereof and has complied with its requirements, including insurance, and that no presumption that he was bound by the act could have arisen prior to such compliance. Section 59-10-4 of 1953 Compilation, provides: Section 59-10-3 of 1953 Compilation, provides: The record discloses that the defendant had not exempted himself from the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore he is conclusively presumed to have accepted its provisions. Section 59-10-4, 1953 Compilation. If the defendant had been carrying insurance, or had relieved himself from so doing, as required *1070 by the act, it would have been conclusively presumed that the plaintiff had himself accepted the provisions of the act and this action could not have been maintained because in that case the remedy under said act is exclusive. Section 59-10-4, 1953 Compilation. But the defendant did not carry workmen's compensation insurance, nor had he relieved himself of such requirement as required by § 59-10-3, supra. Therefore defendant was not operating under the provisions of the act, and plaintiff, under such circumstances, could not have been conclusively presumed to have accepted the provision thereof. Consequently, this action at law lies in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, and the defenses enumerated in § 59-10-5, were not available to defendant. See, Schneider, Workmen's Compensation Laws Vol. 1, § 91 pp. 230, 231. The case of Thompson v. Dale, 59 N.M. 290, 283 P.2d 623, 628, relied upon by appellant as authority for his contention that he is entitled to the common-law defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk and the fellow servant doctrine, is not in point or applicable to the instant case. There we were dealing with an injury sustained by a farm and ranch laborer while in the course of his employment. Justice Sadler, speaking for the court said: We conclude that the trial court did not err either in overruling the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint or in striking his third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses. The defendant's third claim of error relates to the trial court's refusal to direct a verdict in his favor. This motion is based upon the defendant's theory that both the appellee and defendant were bound by the Workmen's Compensation Act. But the appellee could not be conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the act, since the defendant had not complied with its requirements, including insurance. Until there is a compliance with the requirements of the act relating to insurance by the employer, then, no presumption arises that the employee is bound by the act. In passing on a motion for a directed verdict the court must view the plaintiff's evidence in the most favorable aspect, indulging in all reasonable inference to be drawn from plaintiff's evidence and disregarding all unfavorable testimony and inferences. Chandler v. Battenfield, 55 N.M. 361, 233 P.2d 1047. The uncontradicted testimony *1071 of Rubie V. Krohn, clerk of the district court, shows that the defendant had not complied with the provisions of the act relating to insurance. The court did not err in denying the motion for an instructed verdict. The defendant's fourth claim of error relates to the refusal of the trial court to give his requested instruction No. 1, which reads in part as follows: This instruction tells the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant if it only finds that plaintiff did not give the required notice in writing to the defendant and to the clerk of the district court, electing not to become subject to the provisions of the act, even though it found that the defendant had not complied with the provisions of the act relating to insurance. We are satisfied that the court properly refused this instruction as not being a correct statement of the law, and it was not necessary for the trial court to separate the possible good from the bad. See, Miles v. Lavender, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 450; Jeff Hunt Machinery Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 219 S.C. 340, 65 S.E.2d 260; Schultz v. Shirley, 189 Or. 363, 220 P.2d 86; Powell v. Langford, 58 Ariz. 281, 119 P.2d 230; Huggans v. Southern Pac. Co., 92 Cal. App. 2d 599, 207 P.2d 864; Ferguson v. Ashkenazy, 307 Mass. 197, 29 N.E.2d 828. The defendant's fifth claim of error relates to the refusal of the trial court to give the second paragraph of his requested instruction No. 3, which reads as follows: It was plaintiff's theory throughout the trial that the negligence of Beaumont, an employee of the defendant, in attaching the neon sign to the mast from which it hung, when the guy wire which supported the mast was attached only to the fire wall and not to the roof of the building, as it should have been, and his standing upon said sign so attached, was what proximately caused *1072 the bricks of the fire wall to fall on plaintiff. The testimony of the expert witnesses who testified at the trial of this case was unanimously to the effect that it was hazardous and negligent to attach a sign to a mast which was supported by a guy wire fastened to a fire wall, and that such a practice was likely to cause the fire wall to collapse. Raymond Beaumont, an employee of defendant, testified as follows: The first paragraph of the instruction fairly, correctly and sufficiently stated the rule of law applicable to the issues of the case, and the court did not err in refusing to give the second paragraph of the requested instruction, for it would have directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant if they found that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the falling of bricks from the top or front of the building, regardless of what they found caused the bricks to fall from the fire wall. The defendant's sixth claim of error is based upon the denial by the trial court of his motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or in the alternative for a new trial. Under the first proposition defendant contends that he is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of the alleged prejudicial misconduct of counsel for plaintiff. Dr. A.B. Stewart, a psychiatrist, called to the stand by counsel for plaintiff testified: The nature of the alleged misconduct of counsel for plaintiff is as follows: After argument before the court in the absence of the jury, the court made the following rule: After the jury returned into court they were instructed: A motion to declare a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the refusal thereof because of an objectionable question propounded to a witness by counsel is reviewable for abuse of discretion only. Whether the question propounded to Dr. Stewart by plaintiff's counsel constituted prejudicial misconduct preventing a fair trial is a question of fact. The trial judge was in a much better position to know whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place and his opinion is entitled to great weight in the absence of a clearly erroneous decision. It is difficult to see how the question propounded to Dr. Stewart, a psychiatrist, who had spent four hours examining the plaintiff, if he could testify freely with the plaintiff present in the court room or would he prefer to have him leave the room, could have had any particularly prejudicial effect on the jury, and, to say the least, the record affords no basis for this court to say that the trial judge abused its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. See, Hulburd v. Worthington, 57 Cal. App. 2d 477, 134 P.2d 832. Under the second proposition the defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because of the alleged misconduct on the part of the jury. The nature of the misconduct is as follows: After the jury had been instructed, and before argument of counsel, the following request was made of the court: There was no objection made to this request by counsel for defendant. The principal complaint of counsel for defendant is not that the court erred in permitting the jury to examine the exhibits, which had been introduced in the case, as requested by counsel for plaintiff but that after the jury were permitted to do so they conferred with each other and discussed the case before it was finally submitted to them. The rule of law is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the court and will be reviewed only for a clear abuse of discretion. Cienfuegos v. Pacheco, 56 N.M. 667, 248 P.2d 664. We cannot say from the record that there was such abuse of discretion as would require a reversal of the case and we conclude that the refusal of the motion was proper. In the case of Wilson v. California Cab Co., 125 Cal. App. 383, 13 P.2d 758, 759, it was contended, as it is in the instant case, that the jury had been guilty of misconduct when, during a five minute recess, after all the evidence was in, but before the case was finally submitted to the jury, a group of jurors gathered around a map which was an exhibit in the case, and discussed it, and made measurements upon it. The court said: See, also Maulsbury v. Shure, 170 A. 41, 12 N.J. Misc. 137; Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App.D.C. 280, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393; Higgins v. Dean Gas Engine &amp; Foundry Co., 140 Ky. 44, 130 S.W. 800. *1076 In the case at bar no one heard what was said by the jurors or what they discussed. Furthermore, the court offered counsel for defendant the opportunity to interrogate certain jurors as to what was said or discussed by them, but this offer was declined. Finally it is urged that the trial court erred in giving its instruction No. 15-A. The defendant, by his answer, set up several affirmative defenses, among them is the following: Instruction No. 15-A reads as follows: In order to create estoppel by acceptance of benefits it is essential that the person against whom estoppel is claimed, should have acted with full knowledge of the facts and of his rights, and that the party claiming estoppel should have been without knowledge or means of knowledge of the facts on which he based his claim and that he was misled to his prejudice. Whether the plaintiff had full knowledge of the nature of both his right to workmen's compensation benefits, and his right to maintain an action for damages; and whether he abandoned his right to an action for damages in favor of accepting workmen's compensation benefits; and whether he knew or not that he had a right to an action in damages at the time that he accepted workmen's compensation benefits, if he did so accept them, are all questions of fact to be determined from the evidence in reference thereto, and the issues were, therefore, properly submitted to the jury. The defendant at all times knew that he did not carry workmen's compensation insurance and had not relieved himself of so doing as provided by the act; therefore, he is not in a position to invoke the doctrine of estoppel as a bar to plaintiff's cause of action. It follows from what has been said the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered. McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur. SADLER and KIKER, JJ., not participating.