Court Opinion

ID: 9543905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:20.096335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:26.548887
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur, with hesitation, in what is a result forecast in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Otis in Houle v. Stearns-Rogers Mfg. Co., 279 Minn. 345, 355, 157 N.W.2d 362, 369 (Peterson, J., joining in dissent):
“ * * * The court has abandoned the requirement that an employer have a localized business in Minnesota as a prerequisite to imposing liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Predictably, the next step will be to apply the Minnesota act regardless of where a Minnesota resident is hired or injured.”
The court’s opinion indicates today’s decision is without precedential significance except for work-related injuries occurring before the enactment of Minn.St.1967, § 176.-041. It is, at best, a marginal case and should, as the court invites, “provoke a legislative reexamination of what should be the range of extraterritorial application of our laws as applied to the airline and other similar industries.”