Ross v. Erickson Construction Co.

Citations

• 89 Wash. 634
• 155 P. 153
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 851

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act — Effect—Abolition of Civil Actions — Malpractice in Furnishing Medical Attendance. Under the workmen’s compensation act, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6604-1 et seq., compensating injured workmen in extra-hazardous employments without reference to the manner of the injuries, and declaring that, “all phases of the premises are withdrawn from private controversy,” “and to that end all civil actions and civil causes of action for such personal injuries . . . are hereby abolished, except as provided in the act,” and providing for readjustment of compensation in case of aggravation of disability, an injured workman compensated by the act cannot maintain an action for malpractice aggravating his injuries, against his master and the physician provided by the master to furnish medical attendance to employees in consideration of monthly deductions from their wages; since the injury by such malpractice is proximately attributable to the original hurt and is received in the course of the employment and so within the benevolent design of the statute providing compensation.</p> <p>Same — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Police Power. The ad-measurement of damages in money for injuries to employees is within the police power of the state, and the courts will not restrain or enlarge upon the exercise of that power, or substitute its judgment for that of the legislature upon any question of fact arising under it.</p> <p>Same — Compensation—Effect on Accident Insurance. The workmen’s compensation act providing compensation to injured employees in extra-hazardous employments does not bar a recovery upon an accident policy, since the same rests upon a contract independent of the statute.</p>