Court Opinion

ID: 9544439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:38.118971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:00.386374
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). All that is necessary to write is that plaintiff made no claim, nor offered any proof, that her employer was negligent, and that its negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. This is a condition precedent to recovery. McDonald v. Artesia General Hospital, 73 N.M. 188, 386 P. 2d 708 (1963); 1 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15.42, note 42. As a matter of public interest, McDonald should be reversed. New Mexico is the only state in the union which has adopted the hazardous employment limitation as an inheritance from the pre 1917 period. 1 A Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 55.10, at 981. In 1934, the Supreme Court said the above rule is a harsh rule, a matter of legislative policy subject to interpretation by the court. Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 38 N.M. 241, 31 P.2d 255 (1934). It would be simple to adopt the “on premises” rule. Even though plaintiff was admittedly going home, she was entitled to workmen’s compensation because she was still governed by Ampex rules in walking to her car located on a company parking lot provided for employees. It was an incident of employment. For “parking lot” cases, see, Federal Insurance Company v. Coram, 95 Ga.App. 622, 98 S.E.2d 214 (1957); United States Casualty Company v. Russell, 98 Ga.App. 181, 105 S.E.2d 378 (1958); Brown v. Reed, 209 Va. 562, 165 S.E,2d 394 (1969); Willis v. State Accident Insurance Fund, 3 Or.App. 565, 475 P.2d 986 (1970); 58 Am.Jur. Workmen’s Compensation, § 221; 1 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15.14; 8 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Text (Permanent Edition) § 1712; 99 C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation § 234.