Court Opinion

ID: 9548431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:03:34.189866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:56.368856
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I concur in that part of the dissent by Tongue, J., which holds that we should not approve procedure which allows a defendant to assert after judgment a defense based upon facts of which defendant necessarily had knowledge at all times and which efficient judicial administration required be tried preliminarily to a full-scale trial.
The excuse which is used for permitting the defendant to assert at that late date the defense of the exclusive remedy under the compensation act is defendant’s not learning that plaintiff had applied for compensation prior to the commencement of the present trial. It does not take much imagination for any competent lawyer to realize immediately that such a defense is in the picture in any situation in which an employee, while at work on the premises of his employer, is injured by another employee while executing his *277duties in the course of his employment. The feeble excuse that this defense occurred to the lawyer only upon his learning that the plaintiff had previously applied for compensation is too thin to be credible.