Lloyd v. Minnesota Valley Canning Co.
The holding in the court’s own words
Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the workmen’s compensation act, but, since we hold that plaintiff’s injuries do not *306 fall within the coverage of that act, the question of constitutionality does not arise.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Frank v. Anderson Bros. 51 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1952
- Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Donnelly v. Minneapolis Manufacturing Co. 161 Minn. 240
- Rosenfield v. Matthews 201 Minn. 113
Opinion text
Per Curiam. This case comes here on appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint. The action was by an employe against her employer, sounding in tort, for personal injuries resulting only in disfigurement not materially affecting plaintiff’s employ-ability. Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the workmen’s compensation act, but, since we hold that plaintiff’s injuries do not *306 fall within the coverage of that act, the question of constitutionality does not arise. M. S. A. § 176.11, subd. 3(38), by necessary implication excludes from the coverage of the workmen’s compensation act disfigurement which does not materially affect employability. Therefore, plaintiff’s tort action for such disfigurement survived the enactment of the compensation act. Donnelly v. Minneapolis Mfg. Co. 161 Minn. 240 , 201 N. W. 305 ; Rosenfield v. Matthews, 201 Minn. 113 , 275 N. W. 698 , and cases cited. Order reversed.