FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837  
838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   855   856   857   858   859   860   861   862   >>   >|  
ile in California in the course of his employment.[121] The earlier case was distinguished as not having decided more than that a State statute, applicable to employer and employee within the State, which provides compensation if the employee is injured while temporarily in another State, will be given full faith and credit in the latter when not obnoxious to its policy. Inasmuch as the Court in the older decision is reputed to have observed that reliance on the Vermont statute, as a defense to the New Hampshire suit, was not obnoxious to the policy of New Hampshire, it may be possible to reconcile these two cases by stating that a foreign workmen's compensation statute will be recognized when it is invoked as a defense but need not be applied when the plaintiff endeavors to found his suit thereon. Later decisions involving the recognition of a foreign workmen's compensation act include the following. In Magnolia Petroleum Co. _v._ Hunt[122] the Court ruled that a Louisiana employee of a Louisiana employer, who is injured on the job in Texas and who receives an award under the Texas Act, which does not grant further recovery to an employee who receives compensation under the laws of another State, cannot obtain additional compensation under the Louisiana Act. However, a compensation award by State A to a resident employee of a resident employer injured on the job in State B will not preclude State B from awarding added compensation under its own laws, when the compensation statute of State A does not expressly exclude recovery under a law of the State in which the injury occurred and when the State A award incorporated a private settlement contract wherein the employee reserved his rights in State B.[123] Also, the District of Columbia workmen's compensation act, which expressly covers an employee of the District employer, "irrespective of the place where the injury occurs," constitutionally may be applied, in the case of injury resulting in death, to a District resident, employed by a District employer, who was assigned to a job at Quantico, Virginia, and who, for three years prior to his death in Virginia, has commuted to the job site from his house in the District.[124] Development of Section to Date and Possibilities EVALUATION OF RESULTS Thus the Court, from according an extrastate operation to statutes and judicial decisions in favor of defendants in transitory actions, proceeded next to confer the sa
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837  
838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   855   856   857   858   859   860   861   862   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

compensation

 

employee

 
employer
 

District

 

statute

 

Louisiana

 

resident

 
injury
 

workmen

 

injured


Hampshire

 

decisions

 

Virginia

 

receives

 
applied
 

foreign

 

defense

 

obnoxious

 

policy

 

recovery


expressly

 

settlement

 
private
 
occurred
 
contract
 

incorporated

 
confer
 

rights

 
reserved
 
exclude

transitory
 

actions

 
defendants
 
awarding
 

preclude

 

proceeded

 
occurs
 
commuted
 

RESULTS

 
Possibilities

Section

 

Development

 

Quantico

 

EVALUATION

 

irrespective

 

covers

 
judicial
 

Columbia

 
constitutionally
 

statutes