«THE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS BY CLARENCE W. IIOBBS 1. In General. A goodly number of the compensation acts are by their ...»
176. Employee of foreign corporation, located in Pennsylvania, hired in New York, but never employed in hazardous work there.
Anderson v. Jarrett Chambers Co., 206 N. Y. S. 458, 210 A. D. 543. Rigger, hired in New York, but never performing hazardous work there.
Baum v. New York Air Terminals Inc., 245 N. Y. S. 357, 230 A. D. 531. Employee of construction co., employed exclusively on New Jersey job.
Kalfatis v. Commercial Printing Co., 254 N. Y. S. 519, 233 A. D. 649. Painter, working on bridge job, including work to be done in both Pennsylvania and New York, but never having worked in New York.
Similarly, New York law not applicable to injury in New York, if employee is only temporarily in New York, location of employment being elsewhere.
Proper v. Polley, 253 N. Y. 'S. 530, 233 A. D. 621.
Third Party Actions.
In Re Hertel's Est., 237 N. Y. S. 655. Extra-territorial effect subrogation provision.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 258 N. Y. S. 35.
Extra-territorial effect statutory right of action.
35. North Carolina.
Sec. 36 of act gives remedy for extra-territorial injuries :
(a) if contract of hire is made in state, and (b) if employer's place of business is in state, and (c) if employees residence is in state.
Act not extra-territorial if contract is expressly for services exclusively outside state.
Provision that if employee receives compensation or damages under law of any other state, he shall not receive a total compensation for same injury greater than provided by this act.
Prior to enactment of compensation act, court refused to recognize compensation act of another state as barring action of tort in North Carolina.
(a) Where plaintiff was resident of North Carolina, hired in Tennessee, and injured in North Carolina. Farr v. Babcock Lumber Co., 109 S. E. 833.
(b) Where plaintiff was employed in North Carolina, and injured in Tennessee. Johnson v. Carolina, C. & O. R. Co., 131 S. E.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPEIqSATION ACTS ~89(c) Where plaintiff was employed and injured in Tennessee. Lee v. Chemical Const. Co., 136 S. E. 848.
The last two cases seem contrary to sound principle.
36. North Dakota.
Sec. 396-a 10 of act provides that act shall not apply extra-territorially except in case of county peace officers, and except in case the employer has contracted for extra-territorial protection, no employer can obtain extra-territorial protection unless his plant and main office are in North Dakota, and unless he expends two-thirds of payroll in employment in North Dakota.
Act not applicable extra-territorially in case of employment located in Washington.
Altman v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 195 N. W. 287.
Act not applicable extra-territorially in case of county peace officer unless county has purchased extra-territorial protection.
McArthur v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 244 N. W. 259.
Sec. 1465-68 and 1465-90 indicate that act applies extra-territorially.
Not extra-territorlal as to contracts for services wholly to be performed outside state.
Ind. Com. v. Gardinio, 164 N. E. 758.
Not extra-territorial as to employee engaged in construction entirely in another state, and who signed a contract stating that contract was made in such other state and was governed by its laws.
Johnson v. Ind. Com., 186 N. E. 509.
Act not extra-territorial.
Sheehan Pipe Line Const. Co. v. State Ind. Com., 3 P. 2nd 199.
Continental Oil Co. v. Pitts, 13 P. 2nd 180.
As to extra-territorlal effect of statutory right of action against uninsured employer, see Osagera v. Schiff, 240 S. W. 124 (Mo).
Sec. 49-1813-a. Act extra-territorlal as to workman who is hired to work in state, and temporarily leaves it, provided he is not at time of accident subject to compensation act of another state.
290 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTSSec. 49-1815-a. Act not extra-territorial as to employers of interstate carriers of goods by motor vehicle between fixed termini.
As to effect of subrogation section of foreign compensation act, see Rorvik v. North Pacific Lumber Co., 190 P. 331,195 P. 163.
Sec. 1. Provides that act shall apply to all injuries in commonwealth irrespective of where contract of hire was made.
Act applies extra-territorially only to Pennsylvania employees performing services for employers whose places of business are in commonwealth, and whose duties require them to be temporarily absent from the commonwealth not exceeding 90 days.
The term "Pennsylvania employees" does not mean merely employees of a Pennsylvania employer, but only such as perform the major part of their services in Pennsylvania.
Bock v. D. B. Frampton & Co., 161 A. 762.
41. Rhode Island.
No provision as to extra-territoriality.
Act held to apply to extra-territorial injury of employee hired in Rhode Island.
Grinnell v. Wilkinson, 98 A. 103.
42. South Carolina.
Sec. 36. Act extra-territorial.
(a) If contract of hire is made in state, and (b) If employer's place of business is in state, and (c) If residence of employer is in state.
Act not extra-territorial if contract is expressly for services exclusively outside of state.
Provision that if employee receives compensation or damages under the law of any other state, he shall not receive a total compensation for same injury greater than provided by act.
43. South Dakota.
Sec. 9453. Act stated to apply extra-territorially.
Sec. 6870. Act applies extra-territorially if contract of hire is made in state, unless otherwise expressly provided in contract.
Held to apply extra-terrltorially even if contract is for service exclusively in another state.
Smith v. Van Noy Interstate Co., 262 S. ~¥. 1048.
Receipt of award for compensation under law of another state bars award under Tennessee law.
Tidwell v. Chattanooga Boller & Tank Co., 43 S. W. 2nd 221.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF CO~[PENSATION ACTS ~.91
Part 1 Sec. 19. Act applies extra-territorially in case of employees hired in state, provided (a) That injury occurs within 1 year after leaving state, and (b) That employee has not elected to pursue his remedy and has not recovered in courts of state where injury occurs.
Act applies extra-territorially where contract is made in Texas.
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Volek, 44 S. W. 2nd 795, 69 S. W. 2nd 33.
But not if contract is not made in Texas.
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Hoehn, 72 S. W. 2nd 341.
Extra-terrltorial provisions have no application if employer is non-subscriber.
McGuire & Cavender v. Edwards, 48 S. W. 2nd 1010.
Insurance policy issued before enactment of extra-territorial provision held to cover extra-territorial injuries sustained after enactment and during policy term.
Home Life & Acc. Co. v. Orchard, 227 S. W. 705.
Prior to amendment of act, receipt of award under law of another state was not available in bar or as set-off.
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Price, 300 S. W. 667, 672.
Norwich Union Ind. Co. v. Wilson, 17 S. W. 2nd 68, 43 S. W.
See. 3126. Act extra-territorial as to workmen hired in state.
Provision for enforcement of remedies under laws of other states in case of workmen hired outside state.
Contractor's employee hired in Utah held entitled to award for injuries in Colorado although employer had taken out insurance in Colorado State Fund to protect employees working in Colorado.
Picketing v. Ind. Com., 201 P. 1029.
Action for damages based on injury in Idaho held barred by Idaho compensation act.
Shurtliff v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 241 P. 1058.
See. 6506. Act applies extra-territorially as to workmen hired in state.
See. 6507. Provision for enforcement of remedies under laws of other states in case of workmen hired outside state.
~'9~ EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTSSec. 6510. Provisions for agreements between employers and employees hired within state to work outside that remedies under act shall be exclusive as to extra-territorial injuries. Contracts of hire made in state presumed to include such agreement.
Held that Vermont act applies to injuries received in Vermont, wherever contract of employment is made : but that ordinarily the court would, on principles of comity, leave parties to remedy under law of state where contract was made.
De Gray v. Miller Bros. Const. Co., 173 A. 556.
Sec. 37. Act applies extra-territorially.
(a) If contract of hire is made in state, and (b) If employer's place of business is in state, and (c) If residence of employee is in state.
Does not apply extra-territorially if contract of hire is expressly for services exclusively outside of state.
Provision that an employee who receives compensation or damages under law of another state, shall not receive for the same injury total compensation greater than that provided by act.
No extra-territorial provision: but act held to apply to extraterritorial injury received by Washington employee temporarily absent from state.
Hilding v. Dept. of Labor & Industries, 298 P. 321.
Compensation Act held not to prevent courts from entertaining suit based on foreign tort.
Reynolds v. Day, 140 P. 681.
50. West Virginia.
Part 2. Sec.
1. Act extra-territorial as to employers regularly employing persons for carrying on business or industry within state, and as to employees temporarily and necessarily absent from state, such absence being directly incidental to carrying on industry within state.
Act extra-territorial as to employees of mines if main opening is located wholly within state.
_Act held extra-territorial as to employees in mine.
Gooding v. Ott, 87 S. E. 862.
Act held extra-terrltorial as to employee regularly employed in West Virginia, but temporarily in Kentucky.
Foughty v. Ott, 92 S. E. 143.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COI~PENSATION ACTS ~,93
No provision as to extra-territoriality.
Act originally held extra-territorial where contract of hire was made in state.
Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co., 170 N. W. 275, 171 N. W.
935, 182 N. W. 852, 187 N. W. 746.
Zurich etc. Co. v. Ind. Com., 213 N. W. 630.
Thresherman's Nat. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ind. Com., 230 N. W. 67.
But not where no part of service is performed in Wisconsin.
Wandersee v. Moskewitz et al., 223 N. W. 837.
Act applies to injuries in Wisconsin under Minnesota contract of service, where employer accepts Wisconsin act.
Johnson v. Nelson, 150 N. W. 620 (Minn).
The later cases go on theory of status or localization.
Val Blatz Brewing Co. v. Gerard, 230 N. W. 622.
Contract of hire made in Wisconsin to sell products in Missouri and Arkansas. Held that employee was under Wisconsin law until he acquired status of employee in another state.
This would seem to overrule Wandersee v. Moskewltz, cited above.
Interstate Power Co. v. Ind. Com., 234 N. W. 889.
Wisconsin act held to cover death by injury in Wisconsin of Iowa resident, employed to work in Iowa, but sent temporarily to do work in Wisconsin.
McKesson-Fuller-Morrlson Co. v. Ind. Com., 250 N. W. 397.
Wisconsin act held to apply to death of travelling salesman, a resident of Wisconsin, killed in Illinois. The employer was an unlicensed foreign corporation without even mailing address in Wisconsin. (A very extreme case.) For cases on extra-territorial effect of subrogation section, see Anderson v. Miller 'Scrap Iron Co., cited above.
Bernard v. Jennings, 244 N. W. 589.
No provision as to extra-territorlality.