construing Idaho Workmen’s Compensation Act and holding that the provision reciting the purpose of the Act and the provision permitting an injured employee at his option to claim compensation or to proceed against a third party and subrogating any employer that has paid compensation are in pari materia
How later courts described this case
- construing Idaho Workmen’s Compensation Act and holding that the provision reciting the purpose of the Act and the provision permitting an injured employee at his option to claim compensation or to proceed against a third party and subrogating any employer that has paid compensation are in pari materia
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*118
GIVENS, J.
I concur, except that my concurrence in reversal is rather on the ground that the error in refusing to permit the cross-examination under the statute of Pippinger has not become moot, than on the ground it was reversible error, in view of Instruction No. 21
1
, to admit in evidence before the jury the record of the award made by the Industrial Accident Board. However, I concur that the procedure outlined in the opinion as to this particular is correct.
Morgan, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not sit at the hearing or participate in the decision.
1
“You are further instructed that in arriving at and assessing damages, if you find for the plaintiffs, that it is immaterial in this case that said minors
has
received and are receiving or will receive compensation under the Workmens’ Compensation laws of the State of Idaho for the death of 'their father.”