[DOWNLOAD] "Vesel v. Jardine Mining Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Vesel v. Jardine Mining Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 14, 1940
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 73 KB
Description
Master and Servant ? Negligence of Employer in Gratuitously Selecting First-aid Attendant for Injured Employee ? Liability of Employer ? Workmens Compensation Act ? Inapplicability of Provisions. Master and Servant ? Negligence of Employer in Gratuitous Selection of First-aid Attendant to Injured Employee ? Employer Liable in Damages. 1. Where, in the absence of a statute or contractual obligation, an employer undertakes gratuitously to furnish medical attention to an employee, he is bound to exercise reasonable care in the selection of a competent physician and, if through his failure to do so the employee is injured by reason of unskillful treatment, the employer is liable in damages. Same ? Case at Bar ? Inapplicability of Workmens Compensation Act. 2. Where a miner received an injury to his eye while operating a drill by a fragment of steel from the drill lodging therein, and was directed to the companys first-aid station where the person in charge so unskillfully treated the injury that he lost the sight of the eye, the companys contention in the employees action based on its negligence in selecting an incompetent attendant to treat the injury, that plaintiff was barred from maintaining the action by the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, held not sustainable, the injury complained of, i.e., the injury flowing from the unskillful treatment of the eye, not having arisen out of and in the course of his employment, but from the companys negligence in the selection of the person in charge of the first-aid station. - Page 83 Same ? What Does not Constitute Action for "Malpractice" Under Workmens Compensation Act. 3. Held, under the circumstances above (par. 2), that the defendant companys assertion that section 2909, Revised Codes (a part of the Workmens Compensation Act), in effect providing that an employer shall not be liable for malpractice in the treatment of an injury to an employee, condemns the above action, is not meritorious, the action not having been based upon "malpractice" in any sense of that term, but upon want of care on the part of the defendant in selecting the incompetent person in charge of the first-aid station for administering to plaintiffs injury.