Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 36
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
DEFENSE UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF ARIZONA-
QUESTION OF FACT.
The workmen's compensation act of Arizona limits the common-
law rule of assumption of ordinary risks to risks other than risks and
hazards which are inherent in such occupations and which are un-
avoidable by the workmen and thereby contracts the scope of the
employer's defense in such action; but the defense of assumption
of risks other than ordinary risks and hazards and risks and hazards
which are not inherent in such occupation still remains open to him
and may be pleaded by him in defense as before, only the question
must be determined by the jury as one of fact and not by the court as
a question of law.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez (Arizona), 166 Pacific 278, p. 284.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
CONSTITUTE IONAL REQUIREMENT-MANDATORY.
The constitution of Arizona (art. 18, sec. 7) requires the legisla-
ture to enact an employer's liability law by which the employer,
whether an individual, association, or a corporation, engaged in all
hazardous occupations, including mining and smelting, shall be
liable for the death or injury of any employee, caused by any acci-
dent due to any condition or conditions of the occupation, if such
death or injury shall not have been caused by the negligence of the
employee himself. By this provision the framers of the constitu-
tion and the people in adopting it clearly made known to the legis-
lative department that the public policy of the State is that employers
of labor in hazardous occupations shall be liable in damages to an
employee injured as provided, without regard to the question of
negligence of the employer as the cause of the injury or death. The
provision of the constitution is clearly mandatory, but the form of
the State government furnishes no means by which the legislature
may be coerced into obeying the constitutional mandate, and the
courts themselves have no such power. The courts can only limit
the legislative exercise of power in harmony with the constitutional
provisions. This constitutional mandate in no manner controls
the legislature in the adoption iby it of any provisions of the employ-
er's liability law; unless it attempts to place liability upon an employee
for the death or injury of an employee killed or injured by his own
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez (Arizona), 166 Pacific 278, p. 281.
Casparis Stone Co. v. Industrial Board, etc. (Illinois), 115 Northeastern 822, p. 823.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARIZONA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
The Arizona workmen's compensation act is not unconstitutional
as being in conflict with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the
United States Constitution prohibiting laws which deprive any
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/50/: accessed February 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.