Ginsburg v. Byers

214 N.W. 55, 171 Minn. 366, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1599
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 27, 1927
DocketNo. 25,949.
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 214 N.W. 55 (Ginsburg v. Byers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ginsburg v. Byers, 214 N.W. 55, 171 Minn. 366, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1599 (Mich. 1927).

Opinion

Dibell, J.

Certiorari to review the order of the industrial commission awarding compensation under the workmen’s compensation act.

The employe Ginsburg worked for his employer Byers on road work in Iowa. Ginsburg lived in Iowa; Byers lived in Minnesota. Upon the completion of the Iowa work Byers, in Iowa, employed Ginsburg to do road work in Minnesota, and while so employed he sustained an injury. The only question is whether the Minnesota compensation act is the governing law. Ginsburg claims that it is; Byers and his insurer claim that it is not.

The compensation act provides for elective compensation and the parties become subject to it by agreement. We have often held *367 that when a business is localized in Minnesota an employe sent out of the state in aid of such business is under the protection of the compensation act. Krekelberg v. M. A. Floyd Co. 166 Minn. 149, 207 N. W. 193; State ex rel. McCarthy v. District Court, 141 Minn. 61, 169 N. W. 274; State ex rel. Maryland Cas. Co. v. District Court, 140 Minn. 427, 168 N. W. 177; State ex rel. Chambers v. District Court, 139 Minn. 205, 166 N. W. 185, 3 A. L. R. 1347.

It is now sought to hold the Minnesota compensation act inapplicable, though the business is localized in the state and the injury occurs there, because the hiring was in another state and the employe lived there. The theory of the compensation act is that the industry shall bear the loss from accident. In a proper case this justifies an award of compensation to a man injured out of the state while working for an industry within the state. The cases cited illustrate the principle. There is no justification for excluding from the act a man working in this state for a localized industry because he was hired outside the state where he lived. We know of no principle excluding the plaintiff employe from the benefits of the act.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Houle v. Stearns-Rogers Manufacturing Co.
157 N.W.2d 362 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1968)
Boyle v. G. & K. TRUCKING CO.
179 A.2d 514 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
In Re Hillenbrand
333 P.2d 456 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1958)
Aleckson v. Kennedy Motor Sales Co.
55 N.W.2d 696 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Derosier v. Jay W. Craig Co.
14 N.W.2d 286 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
House v. State Industrial Accident Commission
117 P.2d 611 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)
Severson v. Hanford Tri-State Airlines, Inc.
105 F.2d 622 (Eighth Circuit, 1939)
Buckingham Transp. Co. v. Industrial Commission
72 P.2d 1077 (Utah Supreme Court, 1937)
State Ex Rel. Bozicevich v. City of Eveleth
265 N.W. 30 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
Degray v. Miller Bros. Con. Co., Inc.
173 A. 556 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1934)
McGuire Cavender v. Edwards
48 S.W.2d 1010 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Industrial Commission v. Gardinio
164 N.E. 758 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1929)
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Lundquist
221 N.W. 228 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Watts v. Long
218 N.W. 410 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1928)
Bradtmiller v. Liquid Carbonic Co.
217 N.W. 680 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 N.W. 55, 171 Minn. 366, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsburg-v-byers-minn-1927.