Court Opinion

ID: 9736730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:04:26.134695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:08.468050
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Gilkison, J.
In the opinion we quoted the first grammatical paragraph of §40-1213, Burns’ 1952 Replacement, §1, Ch. 258, p. 733, Acts 1951. We did not *203use this quotation with any thought of asserting that the Acts of 1951 became effective retroactively. We cite it because it and §4, Ch. 188, Acts 1945, pp. 580, 585 are amendments of §13 of Chapter 172 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1929. That act as well as the quoted amendments very definitely limit the application of this section, to “compensation payable under this act.”
We do not think the Indiana Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1929 has ever been held broad enough to allow a tort-feasor, other than the employer, to plead the receipt of industrial compensation under the laws of another state as a defense, set-off or in mitigation, to a complaint seeking damages for such a tort.
The opinion seems to have caused some confusion as to this proposition, and this supplemental opinion is written to make the opinion more definite. We think the demurrer to the special answer was properly sustained and that the court’s instruction No. 19 is not erroneous.
The petition for rehearing is overruled.
Bobbitt, J., not participating.
Note.—Reported in 108 N. E. 2d 57.