Court Opinion

ID: 3287926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:03:07.05326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:20.812800
License: Public Domain

I concur in the judgment. I am not definitely satisfied that in an action of this kind, prosecuted by the dependent survivors of an employee as sole plaintiffs, against a person other than the employer (an action wherein, as the statute provides, the amount of compensation paid by the employer is not permitted to be shown), the employer will in every case be entitled to apply for and obtain an order establishing a lien in his favor for the amount of compensation paid by him. It will possibly be a defense to such application, that the employer's contributory negligence was a concurring proximate cause of the damage suffered. But if so, that will be a question between the plaintiffs and the employer. In order to make sure that the right of action in a case like this shall not be affected by any compensation claim against the employer, the statute has apparently excluded from the trial of the controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant herein any consideration of the amount of compensation paid by the employer. The amount being thus excluded, the plea of contributory negligence of the employer could not affect the amount of the verdict, or be used at all unless to defeat the entire cause of action of the plaintiffs. But manifestly the legislature did not intend that such cause of action shall be thus destroyed.
Houser, J., concurred.
A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on November 13, 1924.
All the Justices concurred. *Page 674