Court Opinion

ID: 6739781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:21:02.673539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:55.391629
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Bronson, J.
The defendant has filed an able petition for rehearing. Among other things he earnestly contends that the writer, in his specially concurring opinion, has misconstrued the meaning and application of § 20, quoted in such opinion. He contends that § 20 confers a right of action upon dependents only in case of an injury or death for which compensation is payable under the act, not in cases where compensation is provided in the act; that compensatiofi is payable under the act only in cases where the employer has contributed his assessment to the Compensation Fund; that, under § 10 of the act, it can only be disbursed to such employees of employers as have paid into the fund the premiums applicable; that this section, therefore, refers to that class of cases where the employer has paid his assessment, and, by reason thereof, compensation has become payable to the employee or his dependents, and, where an injury having occurred through the wilful act or negligence of some other person, a right of action for damages is given against such other person. The contentions are not without merit, and require, by their able presentation, consideration. However, technical reasoning should not override the intent and purview of the act to allow a remedy for a wrongful act. If the defendant had complied with the terms of the Compensation Act, manifestly compensation would have been payable under the act to the dependents of the deceased boy. Section 6 of the act requires every employer to contribute to the fund. It relieves such employer, so contributing, from all liability for personal injuries or death sustained by his employees, and the persons entitled to compensation under the act shall have recourse therefor only to the North Dakota Compensation Fund, and not to the employer. Section 9 of the act likewise relieves employers who comply with the provisions of said § 6 from *789liability to respond in damages at common law or by statute for injury or death of any employee, wherever occurred, with the exception that it does not apply to minors employed in violation of law, in which case both remedies shall be applicable. These sections are followed by § 20, quoted in the special concurring opinion. This § 20 provides that, when death for which compensation is payable under the act shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the Compensation Fund a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, his dependents may, at their option, either claim compensation under the act or obtain damages from, or proceed at law against, such other person to recover damages. It is clear that under the act the defendant is that other person against whom there exists a legal liability to pay damages; that legal liability is provided under the terms of §§ 6, 9, and 11. The only reason why compensation under the act is not payable, if not payable in fact, is because the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the act. In law, compensation is payable under the act because it was a duty of the defendant to comply with the terms thereof. It is unnecessary to determine the liability of the Compensation Fund because it is not involved in the instant case. I therefore adhere to the conclusion that the maintenance of an action by the dependent of the employee is not excluded by the act.
Petition for rehearing should be denied.