 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buck v. Freeman12/12/2000
direct enactment or necessary implication? Rosenfield v. Matthews, 201 Minn. 113, 275 N.W. 698 (1937), reminds us " here an injury does not fall within the workmen's compensation act, the common-law remedy is not affected by it." Id. at 115, 275 N.W. at 699 (citation omitted). Minnesota law does not expressly alleviate the employee's common law right to assert a negligence claim against any person "other than the employer." Minn. Stat. §á176.061, subd. 5, the third-party liability provision, provides in relevant part:
If an injury or death for which benefits are payable is caused under circumstances which created a legal liability for damages on the part of a party other than the employer * * * legal proceedings may be taken by the employee or the employee's dependents * * * against the other party to recover damages. (Emphasis added.)
A plain reading of the statute grants immunity to the employer and no one else. If the legislature intended to exclude the employer's compensation insurer from third-party liability, it could have done so. Clearly, MWCARP is a "party other than the employer" subject to suit. We should not impose the words "and its workers' compensation insurance company" in the third-party liability section to grant immunity to a person where the legislature did not. See Brandt v. Hallwood Management Co., 560 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn. App. 1997) (reviewing court cannot supply that which the legislature omits or overlooks).
I am especially mindful that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. At common law, an employee could sue his employer for negligence. In 1913, that right was taken away by the legislature and the compensation act was substituted. Of necessity, we strictly construe the compensation act. In Donnelly v. Minneapolis Mfg. Co., 161 Minn. 240, 201 N.W. 305 (1924), an employee suffered an industrial disease which was not then among the enumerated diseases covered under the statute. The employer claimed that it was immune from a negligence suit. The court permitted the employee's common law negligence claim against the employer, holding:
To the extent that the field is not touched by the [workers' compensation] statute, it must be considered that the legislature intentionally permitted it to remain under the common law so that either party, employer or employee, can resort to such action as it furnishes for the protection of a common law right. Id. at 242, 201 N.W. at 306.
The Donnelly court strictly construed the compensation act, adding:
Courts are not permitted by construction to carry a statute, particularly one in derogation of the common law, beyond its clearly defined scope. It is for the legislature to limit or extend the operation of its enactments and, even though there are no self-contained limitations, it would be judicial legislation to extend a statute beyond its subject matter. Id. at 245, 201 N.W. at 307 (emphasis added). The rule of strict construction precludes a grant of immunity to the MWCARP where the legislature did not.
The plain language of Minn. Stat. §§ 176.031 and 176.061 clearly and unambiguously grants immunity only to "the employer" and not to the workers' compensation insurer. While following the plain meaning rule and thereby subjecting the MWCARP to a negligence claim may produce policy questions for the legislature to answer, those questions are not for this court.
II. Statutory Duty and Liability
The safety inspection statute, Minn. Stat. § 79.253, subd. 2, should be accorded a liberal construction because it protects the lives and health of workers. Under the law, a liberal construction is usually accorded stat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|