Source or prior law:

L. 1911, ch. 218, § 46; L. 1917, ch. 226, § 25; R.S. 1923, 44-544.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Cases through 1973

IN GENERAL (1-6)

1. The compensation act is a substitute for the common law and not merely supplementary to it; theories upon which the common law developed are not helpful in determining the intent of the legislature in passing the compensation act. Green v. Burch, 164 Kan. 348, 356, 189 P.2d 892 (1948).

2. Provisions of this section held constitutional and valid; does not involve any invalid classification. Hovis v. Refining Co., 95 Kan. 505, 510, 511, 148 P. 626 (1915).

3. Section held inapplicable to employer under act voluntarily who changed election. Vick v. Morton, 172 Kan. 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 238 P.2d 467 (1951).

4. Meaning of words "sustained within this state" questioned. Hicks v. Swift & Co., 101 Kan. 760, 761, 168 P. 905 (1917).

5. Remedy under act is not exclusive if injury complained of is not within its provisions. Echord v. Rush, 124 Kan. 521, 523, 261 P. 820 (1927).

6. Employer not coming under act, employee entitled to other remedies. Smith v. Cement Co., 94 Kan. 501, 503, 146 P. 1026 (1915).

COMMON LAW ACTION

—Negligence (8-12)

8. Employer electing not to come within act is liable only for injuries caused by negligence, but he forfeits defenses hereunder. Palmer v. Julian, 161 Kan. 619, 629, 170 P.2d 813 (1946).

9. Employer elected not to come under act; petition in action for damages states cause of action. Fishburn v. International Harvester Co., 157 Kan. 43, 52, 53, 138 P.2d 471 (1943).

10. Employer and workman both under act; compensation case found no personal injury by accident; dependents may bring wrongful death action and compensation act is not a bar. Contrary was held in first opinion and reversed on rehearing. Echord v. Rush, 122 Kan. 260, 263, 251 P. 1112 (1927); reversed 124 Kan. 521, 261 P. 820 (1927).

11. Employer not within the law; negligence required to recover considered. Brooks v. Coal & Coke Co., 96 Kan. 530, 531, 152 P. 616 (1915).

12. Furnishing of "reasonably safe place to work" considered. Brooks v. Coal & Coke Co., 96 Kan. 530, 531, 152 P. 616 (1915).

—Defenses (14-17)

14. Listed defenses are not available to an employer who elects not to come under act. Railway Co. v. Fuller, 105 Kan. 608, 611, 186 P. 127 (1919).

15. Defendant not under act; pleading of assumption of risk considered. Drake v. Street Railway Co., 96 Kan. 727, 731, 153 P. 539 (1915).

16. Employer not within the law; assumption of risk and contributory negligence defenses allowed. Udey v. City of Winfield, 97 Kan. 279, 281, 155 P. 43 (1916).

17. Contributory negligence not a defense. Ballou v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 761, 763, 765, 152 P. 284 (1915).