Court Opinion

ID: 9612113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:04:57.31878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:17.168037
License: Public Domain

PHELPS, Justice
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion but disagree with the conclusion reached by the court that Collins was “regularly employed” in Arizona as defined by the provisions of section 56-928, A.C.A.1939. See Industrial Commission v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co., 75 Ariz. 357, 256 P.2d 730.
It seems perfectly clear to me that the language employed by the legislature contemplates that the contract of employment must have been made in Arizona. Under the rule laid down in the majority opinion, if Collins, employed in California, had been working only on what is known as the “extra list”, that is, when there happened to be work available for him which only occurred five, six or seven times during the course of a year, and on those occasions drove through the state of Arizona and was injured while within the borders of the state, his claim is compensable except for the fact that it constitutes a burden upon Interstate Commerce.
There is a possibility that a case could arise under such circumstances where there would not be a burden upon Interstate Commerce.