Court Opinion

ID: 9548203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:59:24.706689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:37.423645
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: The court’s decision permits an outrageous confiscation of one person’s property and gives it to another without just cause and in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The feeble effort of the appellees in their brief to uphold the trial court and meet the onslaught of the appellant has been disastrous.
It may be conceded this court by a long line of decisions has repeatedly held that the workmen’s compensation act establishes a procedure of its own covering every phase of the right to compensation, and it has been said such procedure is substantial, complete, and exclusive in itself. (Teague v. George, 188 Kan. 809, 365 P. 2d 1087.) It is to be noted, however, these decisions apply only to cases where there is a right to compensation.
The obligation imposed by the workmen’s compensation act is found in its first section. This section is K. S. A. 44-501 and provides in pertinent part:
“If in any employment to which this act applies, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to a workman, his *250employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, he liable to> pay compensation to the workman in accordance with the provisions of this act. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
This provision of the act conditions liability imposed under the act to these provisions. That is, it imposes liability upon the employers covered by the act where the personal injury of the employee caused by accident arises■ out of and in the course of employment. Only then is the employer liable to pay compensation to the workman, in accordance with the provisions of the act. In other words, the liability of an employer under the act presupposes the establishment of a valid claim by an employee against his employer under the act.
The provisions of K. S. A. 44-556, have been geared to assist the injured workman to receive the benefits of the act, when they are justly due and payable under the act, and to avoid harassment by delay which is commonly found in litigation.
After a period of extended litigation this court in Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 194 Kan. 278, 398 P. 2d 578, found the claimant, Lucille Tompkins, the widow of Raymond Evans Tompkins, Sr., deceased, was not entitled to compensation under the act. In other words, this court held that the husband of Lucile Tompkins, when he received the injury that resulted in his death, was making a trip in his own automobile to purchase groceries for his family, and that his injury and subsequent death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
It is immaterial to a decision in this case that George Rinner Construction Company, Inc., the respondent, was covered by the workmen’s compensation act, and that its insurance carrier was Western Casualty and Surety Company. The decision which the court has announced will be applicable to all situations even where the employer is not covered by the workmen’s compensation act.
In Scammahorn v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn., 195 Kan. 273, 404 P. 2d 170, the primary question presented to the district court by the respondent’s appeal in the workmen’s compensation case was whether the workmen’s compensation act governed the employment of the claimant by the respondent. There the respondent was not insured by workmen’s compensation liability and had not taken steps to qualify as a self-insurer under the provisions of G. S. 1949 (now K. S. A.) 44-532. (See, Scammahorn v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn., 195 Kan. 220, 404 P. 2d 165.)
*251If the issue there before the district court is ultimately determined in favor of the respondent, the decision of the court in the instant case would impose liability upon the respondent until such time as that issue was ultimately put to rest. To me this is outrageous. In effect, it permits property to be taken from one and given to another. And this occurs after the court of last resort in this state determines that nothing was due and owing by the respondent to the claimant in the first instance — that the respondent was not covered by the workmen’s compensation act.
Once the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, which authorized proceedings before the workmen’s compensation director and the courts of this state, have spent their force, the legislative mandates have been met. The mere fact that the legislature has made no further provision is immaterial. That is, it is unnecessary for the legislature to spell out in detail what shall happen where the act does not apply as ultimately determined in the litigation.
Based upon this so-called “omission” by the legislature, the court assumes a positive rule of law to enforce liability upon the appellees where the act was never designed to have application.
Once the provisions of the workmens compensation act, which authorize proceedings before the director and the courts of this state, have spent their force, the court is authorized under its general common law jurisdiction to right the wrongs resulting from such litigation. That is, it may order restitution. (McMillan v. Baker, 20 Kan. 50; Bank v. Elliott, 60 Kan. 172, 55 Pac. 880; Denning v. Yount, 66 Kan. 766, 71 Pac. 250; and Hoppas v. Bremer, 119 Kan. 411, 239 Pac. 961.)
In 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, § 775, p. 676, it is stated:
“. . . one against whom an erroneous judgment or decree has been rendered and carried into effect is entitled, in the event of a reversal of such judgment or decree, to be restored to that which he has lost thereby. The application of this principle to compel restitution to a person damnified by the enforcement of an administrative order subsequently reversed is shown in cases dealing with orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. . .
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution forbids a state from depriving any person of property without due process of law.
There are acts which the Federal Congress or the state legislatures cannot do without exceeding their authority. The United States Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Holmes in the case of *252Penna. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158, 28 A. L. R. 1321, said:
“. . . In general it is not plain that a man’s misfortunes or necessities will justify his shifting the damages to his neighbor’s shoulders. . . . We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change. . . .” (p. 416.)
The ultimate effect of the court’s decision is that it permits the state, acting through the legislature, to take the property of one person and give it to another. Here the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort, has determined that no compensation is due and payable to the claimant under the workmen’s compensation act by reason of her husband’s injury and ultimate death. Yet, by virtue of the pending litigation the claimant was permitted to recover from the respondent and its insurance carrier the sum of $2,394. The court holds the respondent and its insurance carrier cannot recover this sum of money for which it was never liable under the provisions of K. S. A. 44-501.
It is respectfully submitted the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
Fontbon, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.