Court Opinion

ID: 9812974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:52:46.554269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:23.771497
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: The plaintiff was injured while in the employ of the defendant. For five years he declined to be bound by the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and refused to accept any benefits thereunder. In the meantime, he brought a common law action against his employer for damages. Thus, his election of remedies was knowingly and deliberately made.
He now returns to assert his claim under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission held that he was too late — that he could not “have his cake and eat it, too.”
As against plaintiff’s volte face, the defendant invokes the bar of the statute. The Court says, “No.” The case is sui generis in that it penalizes the defendant for complying with the law and rewards the plaintiff for his scorn. The ruling of the Industrial Commission should be upheld.
CoNNOR, J., concurs in dissent.