Court Opinion

ID: 9865188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:26:53.316609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:51.466046
License: Public Domain

*67Mr. Justice Jackson
dissenting.
I dissent because I believe the Colorado cases cited and quoted in the court’s opinion as authority for its position do not in fact support that position. The effect of the court’s opinion in this case is to widen the coverage of the workmen’s compensation act. Whether the act should be so extended ,is a question which in my judgment should be squarely faced and decided on its merits instead of basing the decision on inapplicable cases. The latter procedure leaves the law in a hodgepodge. To take one instance, no one would even surmise from a reading of the court’s opinion, that Industrial Commission v. Anderson, cited in the majority opinion, with its very carefully considered opinion by Mr. Justice Denison, denied recovery to an employee who was injured while on his way to work. If the court’s opinion is to become final, I believe this case should be definitely overruled or distinguished, and not allowed to be cited in support of what it actually does not support.