Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Fourth Circuit

Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co.

363 F.2d 442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1966

DocketNos. 10518, 10519

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 442 (Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co., 363 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These two cases' present a common question: Whether a workmen’s compensation insurance carrier in Maryland is subject to a common law tort liability for the fatal injury of a workman allegedly resulting from a remediable hazard which should have been, but was not, discovered during the carrier’s safety inspections. The District Court construed Art. 101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland as extending the employer’s immunity to its insurer, so that the insurer’s liabilities are limited to payment of the workmen’s compensation benefits due under the statute.

With that construction we agree, for reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court. Donohue v. Maryland Cas. Co., D.Md., 248 F.Supp. 588.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

These two cases' present a common question: Whether a workmen’s compensation insurance carrier in Maryland is subject to a common law tort liability for the fatal injury of a workman allegedly resulting from a remediable hazard which should have been, but was not, discovered during the carrier’s safety inspections. The District Court construed Art. 101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland as extending the employer’s immunity to its insurer, so that the insurer’s liabilities are limited to payment of the workmen’s compensation benefits due under the statute.

With that construction we agree, for reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court. Donohue v. Maryland Cas. Co., D.Md., 248 F.Supp. 588.

Affirmed.

Mildred Naomi Donohue and Janet Lee Donohue, Joyce Ann Donohue and James Edward Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Company, Rosa Lee Grubb and Deborah Leslie Frieze, an Infant, by Her Next Friend Rosa Lee Grubb and Rosa Lee Grubb, Administratrix of the Estate of William Edwin Grubb, Deceased v. The Travelers Insurance Company

363 F.2d 442 (Fourth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donohue-v-maryland-casualty-co-ca4-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack