Court Opinion

ID: 9603265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:04:27.62179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:10.032098
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. Plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma employed by defendant, Transcon Lines, an Oklahoma Corporation, engaged in interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed to operate a truck from Oklahoma City to Fresno, California and back. An accident occurred in Tijeras Canyon, New Mexico while plaintiff was in the sleeper of the truck. Plaintiff suffered injuries arising out of an accidental injury, and recovered workmen’s compensation benefits in the district court. The crucial issue on appeal is whether the district court had jurisdiction to award compensation benefits to plaintiff while he was engaged in interstate commerce. This issue is a matter of first impression. In 1929 (Laws 1929, ch. 113, § 11, p. 212), the legislature adopted the following provision now designated as § 52-1-14, N.M.S.A. 1978: This act shall not be construed to apply to business or pursuits or employments which according to law are so engaged in interstate commerce as to be not subject to the legislative power of the state, nor to persons injured while they are so engaged. [Emphasis added.] For half a century, this provision has not been interpreted or applied. What is meant by the phrase “as to be not subject to the legislative power of the state?” “The consensus of authority seems to be that a state may provide compensation to one engaged in interstate commerce so long as the Congress of the United States, acting under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states, has not pre-empted the field.” Hall v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 131 Ohio St. 416, 3 N.E.2d 367, 370 (1936). Congress has not pre-empted this field. But when Congress has not acted, state powers may only be exercised with certain limitations. This power extends to those matters of a local nature in which the employer is in business in the state and the employee engages in interstate commerce. This power to provide compensation to one engaged in interstate commerce does not extend to nonresident employers whose employee enters this state in the course of employment in interstate commerce. This would place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Spohn v. Industrial Commission, 138 Ohio St. 42, 32 N.E.2d 554, 133 A.L.R. 951 (1941). In Spohn, the court held that a resident of Ohio who entered into a contract employment in the State of Michigan with a Michigan Corporation to act as an “over the road driver” of trucks engaged only in interstate commerce was not entitled to participate in the Ohio State Workmen’s Compensation Fund on account of an injury received in Ohio and arising out of such interstate employment. The rule is otherwise when a nonresident employer is engaged indiscriminately in interstate and intrastate commerce. Holly v. Industrial Commission, 142 Ohio St. 79, 50 N.E.2d 152, 148 A.L.R. 868 (1943). Section 52-1-14, supra, means not only that the Act shall not apply to nonresident employers engaged in interstate commerce, but it shall not be “construed to apply.” We cannot read between the lines, infer, deduce or take this section to mean that the Act shall apply to nonresident employers engaged in interstate commerce. “Since we adopted the Colorado statute we should not lightly refuse to follow its construction by the Supreme Court of that state.” Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 45 N.M. 354, 369, 115 P.2d 342, 351 (1941). We did not adopt the same interstate commerce clause. C.L. 1921, § 4384 of the Colorado Compensation Act before amended, read: The provisions of this act shall not apply to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce nor to their employees. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the Act was applicable to an employee of a “contract carrier” as distinguished from a “common carrier.” Zelle v. Industrial Commission of Colorado, 100 Colo. 116, 65 P.2d 1429 (1937). However, where the employer is engaged solely in interstate commerce, the employee is barred from compensation benefits. But if the employer is engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce, coverage depends upon the specific engagement or work at the time involved. Consolidated Fast Freight v. Walker, 103 Colo. 347, 85 P.2d 720 (1938). In Cohen v. Schaetzel, 106 Colo. 266, 103 P.2d 1060 (1940), the employer operated a trucking business between Denver and Chicago. The employee was killed in an accident in Nebraska while riding in the truck. The employer was not doing business in Nebraska. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against the employer in an action for damages because the Nebraska and Colorado Workmen’s Compensation Commissions were without jurisdiction to award compensation benefits. Nebraska was without jurisdiction because the employer was a nonresident employer, whose employee was engaged in interstate commerce in Nebraska. Colorado was without jurisdiction because § 4384, supra, was applicable. Spohn and Cohen are supported in McClung v. Pratt, 44 Wash.2d 779, 270 P.2d 1063 (1954). In the State of Washington, § 51.12.090 of the Industrial Insurance Act reads in part: The provisions of this title shall apply to employers and workmen (other than railways and their workmen) engaged in intrastate and also in interstate or foreign commerce, for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation now exists under or may hereafter be established by the Congress of the United States * * . [Emphasis added.] McClung held that, despite the application of the Act to interstate commerce, a nonresident motor carrier who was engaged in business only in interstate commerce did not come within the purview of this section and employees of such nonresident employer was not covered by the Act while engaged exclusively, in interstate commerce in the State of Washington. To come within the purview of the Act, the nonresident motor carrier must be engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce. In the instant case, unquestionably, the district court was without jurisdiction to award plaintiff workmen’s compensation benefits. There is another basis for this conclusion. Section 52-1-2, N.M.S.A. 1978 reads in pertinent part: [E]very private person, firm or corporation engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within this state * * * shall become liable to, and shall pay to any such workman * * * compensation in the manner and amount, at the time herein required. [Emphasis added.] The section covers only employers who carry on their business in New Mexico. It does not cover employers from foreign states who engage in interstate commerce through the State of New Mexico and the employee suffers an accidental injury in New Mexico. Industrial Commission v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co., 75 Ariz. 357, 256 P.2d 730 (1953) involved Watson Bros., a Nebraska Corporation, with its principal place of business located in Omaha. It was engaged in interstate trucking in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Watson Bros, was assessed premiums by the Arizona Commission’s Order. Watson Bros, sought to set aside the order directing payment. The Supreme Court held the Commission was without jurisdiction to assess and collect premiums from a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce covering workmen who were employed outside the state who drove trucks across the state while engaged in interstate commerce between termini outside the state. Nothing appears in the New Mexico Workmen’s Compensation Act that grants a district court jurisdiction to award plaintiff compensation benefits inasmuch as plaintiff was an employee of an Oklahoma Corporation employed to transport from Oklahoma to California, and through the State of New Mexico. The judgment of the district court must be reversed.