Court Opinion

ID: 9656094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:35:28.775436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:28.177095
License: Public Domain

Dell, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
It seems to me that M. S. A. 1945, §§ 246.29 and 251.04 are sufficiently ambiguous to require judicial construction. Under a strict construction of the statutes it cannot be denied that there is much merit to the views expressed in the majority opinion. However, these being workmen’s compensation statutes, they must receive a broad and liberal construction in the interest of the workman since the workmen’s compensation act is highly remedial and should not be construed to exclude an employee from benefits unless it clearly appears that he does not come within the protection of the act.3 *79Under the liberal construction which these statutes should receive, I agree with Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher that § 246.29 is procedural while § 251.04 sets forth the essential requisites which entitle the employee to compensation.

Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75, 213 N. W. 546; Nyberg v. Little Falls Black Granite Co. 192 Minn. 404, 256 N. W. 732; Nelson v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. 215 Minn. 25, 9 N. W. (2d) 320; Thoresen v. Schmahl, 222 Minn. 304, 24 N. W. (2d) 273.