Cited by

See, e.g., Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co., 196 Minn. 108 , 264 N.W.

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co., 196 Minn. 108 , 264 N.W.

In Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 114 , 264 N.W.

In Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , we declared that the right to such benefits is distinct from and independent of the right of the employee to compensation for his disability and resulting loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Carlson v. District Court, 131 Minn. 96, 97 , we said: “* * * The claim of plaintiff for compensation does not arise from the injury to her husband, but is a new and distinct right of action created by his death.” In Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 115 , this court held that the compensation to dependents for the death of a workman is a “different, distinct, and independent statutory right,” and the cause of action given to the dependent arises at the time of death.

In Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , , the question was whether a settlement with the injured employee for compensation for his disability is a bar to the proceeding by the sole dependent to be granted compensation for the employee’s death.

Compare Nyberg v. Little Falls Black Granite Co. 202 Minn. 86 , , with Carroll v. State, 242 Minn. 70 , 64 N. W. (2d) 166 ; Johnson v. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. 203 Minn. 347 , ; and Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .

Except where the commission orders otherwise, until the notice and reports have been filed with the commission, the liability of the employer to make payments of compensation continues.” Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 115 , ; Nyberg v. Little Falls Black Granite Co. 202 Minn. 86, 93 , .

1 See, Tierney v. Tierney & Co. 176 Minn. 464 , ; Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 114 , ; Schwarz v. Judd, 28 Minn. 371, 372 , .

6 Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , ; Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 .

Carlson v. District Court, 131 Minn. 96, 97 , , we said: *79 “* * * qqie c¡ajm 0f plaintiff [the widow of a deceased workman] for compensation does not arise from the injury to her husband, but is a new and distinct right of action created by his death.” See, also, Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , ; Nyberg v. Little Falls Black Granite Co. 202 Minn. 86 , ; Johnson v. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. 203 Minn. 347 , ; Dale v. Shaw Motor Co. 206 Minn. 99 , .

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .

“The employer is thereby relieved from liability for damages to the employe in an ordinary negligence case wherein he might otherwise be liable for damages to a much greater extent than under the compensation law.” Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 112 , , and cases there cited.

Under the former, the “surviving spouse and next of kin” are given rights, within the limits of the statute, to recover damages measured by “the monetary loss to the heir or heirs of the decedent.” Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 114 , .

Cf. Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , , where we held that the workman could not during his lifetime, by settlement with his employer or the latter’s insurer, deprive his dependents of the rights given them by the statute.

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108, 111, 112 , .

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .

Carlson v. District Court, 131 Minn. 96 , ; Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , ; American Railroad Co. v. Didricksen, 227 U. S. 145 , 33 S. Ct. 224 , 57 L. ed. 456.

Lewis v. Connolly Contracting Co. 196 Minn. 108 , .