|
DELEGATE MASON: Could you ex-
plain the difference between the function
performed by the Workmen's Compensation
Commission and the functions that could
be performed by a legislatively created
commission to hear automobile accident
cases?
DELEGATE MUDD: Workmen's Com-
pensation Commission is non-judicial, quasi.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE MASON: I do not think
the answer is responsive. At least it does
not answer completely my question.
I want to know the difference between
an automobile injury case and the differ-
ence between a personal injury case on the
job.
DELEGATE MUDD: May I yield to
Delegate Henderson?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: If I may
attempt to answer the question, it seems to
me its distinction is pretty clear. When the
legislature, back about 1914, set up the
Workmen's Compensation Commission, it
first took causes of accidents which had
hitherto been tried in court and set up an
insurance scheme whereby people injured
at work without any question of tort lia-
bility or contributory negligence, or any of
these other things were given the right to
recover from a state agency an amount
which was measured in fixed amounts, not
by verdict before this Commission. That
was a non-judicial commission, and set up
not by turning over previous court work
to a different court, but by putting it on
an entirely different theory and basis.
I think that is really the explanation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE MASON: I am satisfied
with the answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Are there any further questions?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Delegate Mudd,
getting back to district courts again, am I
understanding correctly that there will be
no de novo proceedings as you now have
them at trial magistrates if you take them
up to circuit court?
THE CHAIRMAN: In what court, Dele-
gate Grant?
|
DELEGATE GRANT: The trial in the
district court will be a final trial, and you
will not have a de novo trial in the su-
perior court.
DELEGATE MUDD: That is what we
would contemplate, but it would depend
upon the action of the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: The next ques-
tion would be, assuming that you did have
a final trial in the district court, where
would the appellate jurisdiction then lie?
Would it go up to the intermediate appeal,
or would you have appellate jurisdiction
in superior court over district court pro-
ceedings?
DELEGATE MUDD: It would depend
upon the wisdom of the legislature in de-
scribing jurisdiction. It could provide for
appellate jurisdiction either way.
DELEGATE GRANT: No appellate
jurisdiction in superior court? I wondered
if you contemplated it would go all the way
to the intermediate appellate court.
DELEGATE MUDD: That would appear
to be the inevitable result.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure I un-
derstand the earlier answer. Did you say
that section 5.07 does not authorize the
legislature to prescribe appellate jurisdic-
tion in the superior court?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: As I read it, it did,
in lines 50 and 51 : "such other jurisdictions
as prescribed."
DELEGATE MUDD: I was wrong,
Delegate Grant; sorry. There could be ap-
pellate jurisdiction from the district court
to the superior court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: A second ques-
tion on the jurisdiction of the commis-
sioners: Would you envision they would
be able to issue anything like a writ of
replevin, or would that have to go to the
district court?
DELEGATE MUDD: Within the restric-
tions detailed there I would say that would
have to go to the district court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Another ques-
tion : Although each of those articles indi-
cates the court as a whole throughout the
|
