Court Opinion

ID: 9629735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:48:02.06917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:22.867342
License: Public Domain

RAPER, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The majority decision has rendered meaningless the concept of workmen’s compensation that “ ‘[i]n adopting the new system both employes and employers gave up something that they each might gain something else, and it was in the nature of a compromise; * * *.’ ” Stephenson v. Mitchell, ex rel. Workmen’s Compensation Depart*1227ment, Wyo.1977, 569 P.2d 95, quoting from Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Company, 1918, 25 Wyo. 511, 173 P. 981. What they got was: “ * * * The right of each employee to compensation from such fund shall be in lieu of and shall take the place of any and all rights of action against any employer contributing as required by law to such fund in favor of any person or persons by reason of any such injuries or death,” § 4, Art. X, Wyoming Constitution.
But now, through the employment of an artful manipulation of words, misdirection of legal hypotheses and disregard for the clear language of the constitution, the employer does not have the insurance he has paid for. The employee now may indirectly, through use of a third party go-between, obtain an additional recovery from the employer he could not obtain directly. When that is the case, then as observed by the trial judge, “it appears the constitutional immunity is nearly at an end.”
I would have affirmed the district court.