*1 Hansen, 199, (1957); 50 Wn.2d 310 P.2d 31A C.J.S. § 156(1), 389-90, at at at 388. § § any event must appellant prima still establish a facie Herke, supra; Gard, case. Walker v. 1 S. Jones on Evidence 3:93, 329; at Am. Jur. 221; 2d at 31A C.J.S. § § § 388; Here, at 70 A.L.R. appellant 1326. has produced no substantive evidence and no prima has established facie case years Thus, nothing assessment 1963-67. there is could inference attach. Since the inference case, does not supply the crucial link missing appellant's and since it is not and is independent evidence fact neither nor affirmative substantive of the content or proof missing paper, nature appellant has failed to sustain of proving by its burden clear convincing evidence that challenged valuations and assessments for assessment years 1963-67 illegal. reason,
For this the trial having court been affirmed on points, all other should be affirmed full. En 44529. Banc. December
[No. 1977.] Jepson, Respondent, Francis G. The Appellant. Industries, Depart- al, Respondents, Clinic, Western et Industries, Appellant. ment Labor and *2 Attorney Gorton, General, Slade M. Knies and Robert appellant. Robinson, Assistants, David W. for Honeywell, Gordon, Malanca, Peterson, Thomas, O'Hern respondent Jepson. Johnson, Gordon, Jr., & for Joe respondent Clinic, Dennis Western et al. Seinfeld, The Department J. of Labor and Industries Stafford, judgment Superior (Department) appeals from a of Industrial Court which reversed an order the Board (Board) Appeals Insurance pay respondent and directed the Jepson's Francis industrial insurance claim (Western) Clinic for medi as well as the claim of Western respondent. cal We affirm the trial services rendered court.
Respondent general for Hart a foreman first became acquired Company in 1940. 1953 he Construction vice-pres- percent company's of stock and also became the corporation. cor- ident of the At that time he and the other coverage porate under the officers decided not to elect (Act). nothing in Act There is Industrial Insurance corporate officers ever discussed record to indicate that the subject again. insurance But from that of industrial any notify respondent did of time on to be covered. election corporate
By respondent of the owned one-third ownership company, caused little however this stock of the change Slightly one-half of his in more than his duties. job supervision of at to involve construction time continued corpo- spent in of his time was sites and less than one-half salary making. paid the same base and He was rate decision corporate officers. bonus as the other annual site, work at a job July 19, 1973, supervising On while Hart built being from trestle fell a railroad respondent for injuries severe sustained Company. He Construction the Department. claim with timely which a he filed respon- ground on the the claim rejected injury time of at the corporation dent an officer of a "was of provisions under the be insured and not elected to had provides: RCW 51.32.030 which of or officer any or member Any employer individual payroll upon is carried corporate employer who
any or salary average than the salary or not less wage at a injured, be and who shall payroll such wage named title, under of this as and to the benefit shall be entitled obliga- to the same subject circumstances and the same Provided, or employer That no such a tions as workman: be entitled to employer such shall the beneficiaries of director, to the the prior under this title unless benefits writing notice in injury, has received date of pay- carried upon employer that such fact result of which injury of the as the date prior roll made. compensation for a claims (Italics ours.)1 for medical services Western's claim for the same reason. denied and Board
Respondent appealed Western each both Department's rejection affirmed claims. Thereafter, appealed both and Western to the respondent Superior Court where the cases were consolidated portion 1At the time the officers made their above-cited decision the law, p. 121, 123-24, part read as follows: Laws of § any corporate Any employer or or member officer individual salary upon payroll wage or less employer at who shall salary wage average who shall be named such than the injured, cir- act as and under the same shall be entitled to benefit this Provided, cumstances, obligations, subject as workman: to the same employer dependents such or the That no such beneficiaries under act unless the Director this shall be entitled benefits writing has received notice to the date Industries *4 upon payroll prior employer to the date of such fact that compensation for a are made. as result of which claims (Italics ours.) found in the amendments as issues herein are concerned Insofar significant. appellant respondent have used the Both and RCW 51.32.030 are do We shall likewise. latest citation. fact, review. The Court Superior findings entered con- clusions law and judgment reversing the Board's order directing accept respondent Jep- claim son's for industrial insurance benefits. Depart- ment was also directed accept responsibility financial for the medical services respondent by rendered Western. The Department appealed the consolidated actions to the Court Appeals certified the matter to this court.
In essence the trial court ruled policy Act's mandatory in coverage, expressed 51.12.020,2 entitled respondent to receive benefits notwithstanding notice requirement of RCW 51.32.030. It reasoned that RCW 51.12.020 provides only for employments excluded from coverage and because corporate are not specifically officers in excluded that section they are mandatorily included. when corporate officers of Hart Construction decided not to elect industrial coverage, insurance the types employment by covered the Act were quite different than those July covered the date of respondent's accident. Until the enactment of the Laws of 1st Ex. 2RCW 51.12.020 "Employments following employments excluded. The are the which shall mandatory coverage not be included within the of this title: " (1) Any person employed private in a a domestic servant home employer employees regularly employed forty who than two has less or more employment. week in hours a such “(2) Any person employed maintenance, gardening, repair, remodeling, to do private employer or similar work in about or home of the which does not days. ten work exceed consecutive "(3) person employment A work whose is casual is not in the course of trade, business, profession employer. or of his "(4) Any person performing only, aid services return for or sustenance any religious organization. received from or charitable "(5) partners. proprietors and Sole "(6) Any employee, regularly continuously employed by employer labor, agricultural paid whose cash remuneration due from one year agricultural fifty in that less than calendar labor is one hundred . . dollars. . "(7) Any eighteen years employed by parents age parent child his under agricultural family on activities farm."
399 employ 2, Act those Sess., 289, §§ covered ch. 3 specifically of Laws as extrahazardous. classified ments Department v. & Indus. 1961, 23, § 51.12.010; ch. of (1965); Wineberg v. McLain, 211 54, 401 P.2d 66 Wn.2d Department P.2d Indus., Wn.2d Labor & 57 359 of Department (1961); Amsbaugh Indus., Labor & of (1924). employments All were 692, 224 Wash. P. 18 specifically coverage to from unless be excluded declared respondent setting that included. It was this corporate chose to elect to be covered. other officers years prior August approximately 2 to the of theory completely legislature of accident, reversed coverage. employments All were industrial insurance coverage except those within declared to be included for specifically Sess., of 1st Ex. ch. excluded. Laws 2,§§ 3. coverage mandatory provisions Laws 51.12.020) (now clearly Sess., 289, §§ Ex.
1st
brought
type
employment
respondent's
Act
within the
specifically excluding
respondent
by
agreed
it. It is
personal
coverage under the Act
no
to
made
election
obtain
Department.
by notifying
But,
as to
the record is silent
Company
indus
Construction
either made
whether Hart
premium payments
corporate
for
officers
insurance
its
trial
any
or
director
election
notified the
respondent
has
Act. The
be covered under the
nonpayment
appar
premiums,
not raised the issue of
protected
ently
adequately
satisfied
Thus,
whether the Act's stat
the sole issue is
RCW 51.48.3
mandatory
utory
provides
coverage for a
scheme
despite
to
51.12.020
the officer's failure
officer under RCW
coverage
it does.
hold that
under RCW 51.32.030. We
elect
example
3For
see:
occurring prior
injury
liability
penalties,
Employer's
disease
for
"51.48.010
Every
compensation
payment
be
secured.
shall
liable
to time
occupa-
penalties
if
in this title and shall also
liable
described
secured
the time he has
a workman
to
tional disease has been sustained
fifty percent
penalty
equal
compensation
payment
in a sum
such
For a
years
number of
the Department
has ruled that
written notification of an intent or election to be covered is
a prerequisite
for coverage of a corporate officer. RCW
51.32.030; WAC 296-17-330. The Department
argues that
its
interpretation
administrative
of the law is entitled to
great
Anderson v.
weight
O'Brien,
(citing
64, 68,
84 Wn.2d
(1974)
It should
pointed
out that
these two means of
construing ambiguous
statutes relied on
Department
the
merely
are
Weyerhaeuser
aids for
the courts.
Co. v.
Department
Ecology,
(1976).
86 Wn.2d
Wn.2d P.2d There is no evidence in the respon- record not that director did receive notice that being payroll support dent was carried on rejection respondent's Board's claim. Department Department also on Farr v. relies (1923) Indus.,
Labor & P. 20 Wash. interpreting held, in an version RCW 51.32.030, earlier compensation that not should be awarded death of a corporate officer who had never been on carried Department to the when submitted no notice thereof had given Department required by been to the as the Act. despite Depart- that, Careful of Farr review reveals argument contrary, sup- ment's to the that case does port position respondent Jepson. its as to Farr on relies Department fact that the had received notice that company's payroll had the claimant been carried on the premiums paid by logging company. and no had been nothing in Farr, There is support or in either 51.32.030 Department's distinguished that, contention payroll, from on notice a claimant must Department also first have notified the of an election to be covered the act. directly
Looking enacting statute, at the we note that the persons clause of RCW forth 51.32.030 sets those who are Clearly, pro- entitled to benefits the Act. this under clause they persons vides for two distinct classes because have "any disjunctive. been set forth The first class is "any employer" second individual and the class member employer."4 subsequent or officer of Yet the statutory proviso relied on to disentitle any corporate employer" "member[s] officer[s] of from solely "employer" benefits, "the refers beneficiaries employer" being compensation of such disentitled to unless writing notice in of the fact the director "has received 4It is of interest has construed the words "member" and synonymous. "officer" to be WAC 296-17-330.
[403] upon the to is such employer" Clearly, "individual ...” date of the by proviso. coverage But, the be to would disentitled persons, i.e., ”member[s] officer[s] or second class of corporate employer . [s]" . . is whatsoever not mentioned proviso. enacting clause, statute, The half of the or first places employer" "any or which member an "individual footing corporate employer" equal any with officer of on an proviso, requiring The other workmen was enacted 1911. employer” give to written notice "such injury, added amendment before the date p. 74, 346, 348, § 3, See ch. and Laws of 1917. Laws of p. 120, 1, § 476. "any or officer of Because reference to member any corporate employer" brought into the was not forward proviso newly proviso amendment, created 1917 employer." thus limits itself to "such Whether we the term legislature may inadvertently believe the omitted the have phrase employer" or is "member officer important. proviso not phrase. The that the this fact remains lacks things it those
We are
authorized to read into
may
legislature
which we conceive the
left out unin
have
tentionally. Department
Cook,
&
v.
44
Indus.
(1954);
671, 677,
ex rel.
Wn.2d
Consequently,
proviso's
of the second
omission
coverage
significance.
appropriate
office of
class
has
modify
declaring
proviso
exception
to restrain or
something
part
except
enacting
of the statute or
enacting
It
clause.
would otherwise
enacting
enlarge upon
purpose
proviso
of a
County State,
Wn.2d
P.2d 460
clause.
Pacific
(1974);
Club, Inc.,
In Monks
Wn.2d
Since the members or officers of *9 they proviso, subject ers were omitted from the are not by proviso's require disentitlement reason of the notice provides exception, ment. Where a statute for a stated no exceptions by implication. other will be assumed Citizens Yesteryear Interested in the v. Board Transfusion of Regents, (1976); 323, 86 740 v. Wn.2d 544 P.2d Jeanneret (1973); Rees, 404, Club, 82 Wn.2d P.2d 511 60 re Monks supra; Inc., Elum, Sandona v. Cle 37 Wn.2d 226 P.2d (1951); App. Walker, 889 State v. 14 Wn. 541 P.2d (1975). 1237 why
There are other
we
reasons
conclude that
Department interprets
incorrectly.
proviso
the statute
The
compensation
employer
to RCW 51.32.030 denies
to "such
employer"
or the beneficiaries of such
in the absence of
written notice
descriptive
the director. The word "such"
ais
adjective
and relative
that refers
to and
back
something
previously spoken
identifies
of like kind
of. C.J.
Tower &
Buffalo,
States,
Inc. v. United
F.
295
Sons of
(Cust.
1969);
Supp.
Campbell
Mueller,
1108
Ct.
1947);
159
(6th
F.2d
Cir.
Luciani
Grocers
Certified
App.
(1969);
Ill., Inc.,
Ill.
2d
Common sense dictates that the to which the proviso employer" refers its term "such use is the employer" previously "individual mentioned in enact- ing proviso First, clause. while the disentitles one from benefits, the are not of the kind or of the nature benefits (the only paid corporate employer that would to a other clause). employer enacting kind of mentioned Sec- by "beneficiary" ond, the word as defined RCW 51.08.020 dependent husband, wife, child, of workman means "a right payment this whom shall vest a to receive under goes saying corporate employers . . title ."It without do not have to which the "beneficiaries" disentitlement process apply. required Third, could notice is made to employer inform upon director that "such injury". payroll prior date of to the provision if one "indi- refers an notice makes sense payroll. employer" being One does not carried on vidual purposes carry corporate employer on "employer" Next, is defined industrial insurance. an body "any person, persons, 51.08.070, RCW engaged . . . in . . . covered otherwise work provisions defining 51.08.180, Also RCW of tAis ..." title "every person part: . . "workman," . who is reads in employment engaged under in the this by way title, of manual labor or otherwise whether employment Finally, ..." RCW course of his 51.08.185 "employee" "'workman' the context defines as a when Turning 51.32.030, would indicate ..." back to so *10 enacting portion in is that the the ref- clear the statute "any any corporate erence to employer" or officer of member corporation indicates the falls within the that employer. Further, definition of an RCW 51.08.070. RCW clearly body "corporate 51.32.030 itself employer." to that a refers as cor- What then is the of member officer of a status a porate provide employer? again the Once statutes Clearly respondent person working one answer. engaged as did is a employment employer. words,
in of an other person "employee" such is a a "workman" or as those terms in and RCW defined 51.08.180 51.08.185. This enacting portion only means that the RCW 51.32.030 persons deals with two distinct classes entitled to bene- very act, fits two differ- under the but that the classes are employer", i.e., ent. employer is the class The first "individual a statute, who, a work- is treated as because purpose The is man for benefits. class second any corporate employer" who is actu- "member or officer ally employee by statute, who, entitled also statutory benefits. proviso deals earlier, of RCW 51.32.030
As indicated only employers" from as differentiated with "individual corporate employers. certainly
members or officers of Most proviso employees. Consequently, does not deal with logically category one who could fall within the employer" proviso "such in as used is the "individual employer" only "beneficiary" and the would be the benefi- " ciary employer." of an individual
Respondent Jepson "employee" was a "workman" and an Company of the Hart Construction within the definition of engaged employment those terms. He was of his injury. proviso, at the time The discussed at length require above, does not written notice to the director respondent's of the election of one classification statutory in order for him to receive his benefits length, under RCW 51.32.030. As also at discussed statutory employers disentitlement of individual proviso by implication cannot be extended members corporate employers. officers of foregoing interpretation gives of RCW 51.32.030 parts
effect to all of the statute and leaves it without ambi- guity. wholly mandatory Further, it is with consistent coverage 51.12.020, of RCW which lists all of the exclusions mandatory coverage. from
Despite analytical Department's weakness of the precedent, despite Farr as reliance on the failure of analysis herein, to meet of the issues discussed suggested holding interpreted by Farr, that the Department, should be treated with deference because of age. Appellant many urges legislative its sessions have gone judicial pronouncement come and since the in 1923 *11 leading presumption legislature acqui thus ato that the Department's interpretation judicial esced Department assuming determination. Even has inter preted correctly, legislature Farr the failure of the to act following judicial construction a statute does forever perpetuate poorly judi bind court either a reasoned Actually, legisla cial conclusion or an error. the failure of a only ture to act is process one factor to to the consider as an aid statutory Elliott, In re Estate 22 construction.
407 (1945). A.L.R. 359-60, 157 1335 156 P.2d Wn.2d their own reexamining from prevented Courts are never Elliott, Estate decisions, be. In re they nor should applicable of stare decisis is supra. The doctrine & (Windust statutory construction (1958)) when Indus., P.2d 52 Wn.2d faulty, wanting, interpretations that earlier decided Labor & v. Department Petersen See also wrong. even (1952). Thus, stare P.2d Indus., 40 Wn.2d or unrealis- illogical into either an decisis does not force us accept us to the unan- straightjacket requires tic conclusion alytical and unreasoned attributes. erred con- contends the trial court
Finally, appellant
of RCW 51.12.020
the 1971 amendment
cluding that
not reach
We need
by implication.
RCW 51.32.030
repealed
issue,
grounds
court on other
having
affirmed the trial
Steer,
Inc.,
73 Wn.2d
Vacca
length
discussed at
here.
(1968).
892, 895,
The trial court is affirmed. JJ., C.J., Horowitz, Hicks, Rosellini,
Wright, and concur. Justice signed J. have
Rosellini, (concurring)—I However, I out what point desire to opinion. Stafford's was respondent persuasive to me appears under the act. covered act to the industrial insurance
The 1971 amendment coverage scope radical departure constituted a 51.12.010, enacted Previously, RCW insurance. industrial employments limited to those covering inherently and "such "inherently constantly dangerous" amendment The 1961 occupations." hazardous works Thus, by occupations. 70 such over specifically then defined occupa- excluded all the 1961 act design philosophy, included. specifically those except tions *12 The completely 1971 amendment reversed this method by stating occupations that all were within included coverage except specifically those few excluded.
This intent was well illustrated Laws of Ex. 1st Sess., 43, 6, in the first paragraph: § in There is a hazard all employment pur- and is the
pose of this title to embrace all which employments are within the legislative jurisdiction of the state. in
The exclusions contained and 1972 amendments to RCW 51.12.020 were set forth "the only employ- (italics mine) ments" not within mandatory coverage service, and only dealt with domestic gardening, casual in employment, charitable work return for aid or suste- only, agricultural proprietors nance work and "sole and (Italics mine.) partners."
The legislature 1971 added a paragraph second to 51.12.010, RCW which reads: This liberally shall be construed for purpose [act]
of reducing to a minimum suffering and economic arising loss from injuries occurring death and/or course of employment. 51.32.030, right which officers the gives act, repealed by elect to be covered impliedly only the amendment RCW 51.12.020. (which employments shall not pertinent) are here be included within mandatory coverage of this title are "(5) proprietors partners." Nothing sole and is said about excluding corporate employer. an officer of a unambiguous a clear and language, legislature has mandatory described from exemption cover- age. proprietors partners exempted; corporate Sole and officers not. and members are to the approach
This to me establishes a commonsense it within problem—a partners have single proprietor power coverage, their to come under the while elect is the stock- corporation, majority officer of a unless he holder, coverage. under powerless to elect to come most extrahazardous may duties Yet his official dangerous. supervisor is the of a corporation an officer
Suppose and supervise work with work. He must tunnel blasting to obtain powerless He explosives. helpless the use *13 only corporate employer the act. His protection of this option. one who can exercise who engineer, steel supervising an officer is a
Suppose of on the floor the use steel 50th inspect supervise must and again, engaged he is building in under construction. Here a come under power in without to dangerous work act, protect his powerless he is insurance and industrial dependents and beneficiaries. 51.12.020, in "only" RCW and
The use the term the legislative which are within phrase employments "all 51.12.010, per- in RCW does not jurisdiction of the state" exemption, appellants contend. mit an additional me, this class legislature protect To the intent The language is clear. corporations workers officers does not exclude officers of unambiguous of the act and mandatory coverage from the of RCW 51.12. corporations I would affirm.
Wright, C.J., Hicks, J., concur J. Rosellini, and with 1911, Dolliver, (dissenting)—Since J. State program had a industrial insurance Washington has workmen, for in provide certain relief injured "sure and . work, . . dependents regard- and their families and their of fault." RCW 51.04.010. The 1911 stat- questions less of in coverage only where workman provided ute cases 1911, work." ch. in hazardous Laws "injured was extra 1971, 1, years In until the defi- intervening p. 345. § continually changed work" nition of "extrahazardous was idea legislature abandoned the expanded. and "a work and declared there was hazard of extrahazardous title to . . . this purpose and it is employment all employments legisla- . . . embrace all which are within the jurisdiction Sess., tive of the state." Laws of 1st Ex. p. legislature 289, 2, § 1543; RCW 51.12.010.The at the "employments same time also listed those which shall not mandatory coverage" be included within the of the act. RCW 51.12.020. insurance,
Prior to to be covered under industrial (1) (2) workman/employee engaged one had to be and employment legislature. extrahazardous as defined (1) workman/employee After one had to be (2) employment. employers not in an excluded Since workmen/employees have been defined the statute 51.08.180-.185) except Ccompare RCW with 51.08.070 provisions of RCW work- for men/employees 51.32.030 51.32.010, have been covered. See RCW .015. occupa-
Thus, while the 1971 amendment includes the plaintiff engaged, tion in which Title does not automatically working occupa- individual cover an *14 (a) workman/employee provi- tion a under the unless he is (b) 51.08.180-.185, he is covered under sions of parts, provisions of RCW their essential 51.32.030. workman/employee employer and have the definitions changed plaintiff insists, the trial not since 1911. The anyone agreed, employment covered, that, is court since the automatically engaged employment is also covered. distinguished 1911, the act has not so. Since This is employment—i.e., occupation—and between covered workmen/employees. The 1971 amendments did covered only change The shift from extrahaz- this distinction. occupations being occupations being to all covered ardous specified exceptions to the dis- but for is irrelevant covered position case. of this employment plaintiff in which was
Prior engaged extrahazardous. This classification was classified as plaintiff provided coverage for unless would not have alone workman/employee employer, or, he met the as an he was a requirements of RCW 51.32.030. (1) plaintiff questions posed:
Thus, two an Was employer employee purposes coverage or an for (2) employer, industrial insurance? If an an as employer qualify coverage did he for under RCW 51.32- .030? engaged
Plaintiff asserts he was a "workman" covered employment injury majority at the time of his and the agrees. concededly working in While he was covered employment, employer as an rather than as a work- lyas man/employee. corporate Plaintiff was a officer of employer. person corporate Since if a is a officer of an employer qualification coverage for does not come provisions employee/workman under the act as (RCW 51.32.010-.015), 51.08.070;51.08.180-.185; but rather corporate as a officer under RCW 51.32.030. corporate who,
Plaintiff is a officer at the time of his injury, working occupation. plaintiff was in a covered If was benefits, entitled it was as a officer and workman/employee. capacity—as corpo- not as a In that qualified coverage rate officer—he would have been under RCW 51.32.030 "as and under the same circum- subject obligations stances to the same a workman: injury, . Provided . . director, to the date of the writing has received notice of the fact that such employer being upon carried ..." RCW But 323, 14, 51.32.030. see Laws of Ex. Sess., § 1st p. 1239. majority argues though that, first even the statute
expressly requires writing "notice the fact that such employer upon payroll prior to the date compensa- of as the result of which claims for a (RCW 51.32.030), tion are made" since evi- there no dence adduced State did notify *15 Department the Director of of the Labor Indus- department tries somehow the has failed to meet its burden proof. elementary I of would think it from statute that proof a ing has the of claimant burden to enter evidence show- given he had written notice to the was director and [412] coverage. Department & v. Labor entitled to Jussila (1962).
Indus.,
772,
P.2d
If he
to
59 Wn.2d
582
fails
do
370
so,
See
RCW
the claim
RCW
51.52.050
falls.
51.32.030.
also
(Laws
305);
p.
Sess.,
58,
RCW
1975,
§ 1,
Ex.
1st
Department
51.52.102;
51.52.115;
v.
Labor
O'Toole
(1935);
Indus.,
La
&
Vera v.
182 Wash.
by plaintiff It was he not covered. he understood Con- neither Hart the time of accident ulated at plaintiff Company notified nor had struction indus- for him to be covered of an election they plaintiff elected trial and that fact insurance argument to Furthermore, his written be covered. relevancy specifically plaintiff rejected board, proviso. by plaintiff the written notice to follow failure wish or does not it does elect that How does failing by advising way: one covered? There is
4X3 Department writing to "in advise the of the fact that such employer upon payroll prior the to the date compensa- of the as the of which result claims a tion are made." RCW 51.32.030.
Prior to officer could elect to be covered simply by being payroll salary wage "at carried on the or average salary pay wage not less than the named in such p. roll." § 3, Laws 348. Since employer canndt be is on covered unless he the Department writing. unless the is notified of this fact in plaintiff When 51.32.030. concedes and the trial court made, finds no election had been it follows that the Department writing plaintiff was not notified was payroll. straightforward on It the is all rational and con- analysis trast to the tortured and convoluted of the majority. majority Department Farr dismisses Labor & (1) (1923),
Indus., Wash. P. it because does support position (2) of the since Department allegedly interpreted erroneously Farr we illogical need not be forced "into either an or unrealistic straightjacket requires accept unanalytical us to and unreasoned conclusion the attributes." against These lose reasons substance when tested the above analysis. stating undisputed language Farr, of the stat- squarely ute, that, if holds there is no notice payroll, that he is on the then no shall be relief granted. given statute, No notice here and and thus suggest, majority Farr, To should followed. as the seems upheld plain language to, that Farr which of the act should not be followed does indeed have this court move judicial legislation. into a new era of struggle majority obvious, But in its to resist the proviso makes a second contention: Since the does not repeat language enacting clause, somehow does analysis enacting not make a reference to the clause. This totally Using unconvincing. logic major- the strained ity, employer" modifier, since term no it can "such has
hardly anything enacting to in the since refer clause employer or clause member refers "individual any corporate employer." But this much is too officer of phrase majority upon even for it calls that favorite argument disappears—"common when rational sense" employer'" refer to "dictate" that the term "'such must employer.'" "'individual to look to
It does far less violence common sense purpose statute, 51.08- RCW Title 51. RCW entire *17 persons clearly "employer" .070 states the term includes part corporate of The entire alone and as the structure. premise work- of the statute is built around the idea that automatically men/employees unless are covered but that they qualify employers not. under RCW 51.32.030 every majority's reading statutes, however, of Under the the corporate a work- officer the state would be considered automatically man covered under RCW Title and be employer if he while individual would not be covered the notify writing was on failed to that he payroll. wipes much definition This out of elaborate 51.08.070) (RCW employer RCW and makes 51.32.030 hardly appear con- result an elaborate charade. This legislative sonant with reasonable determination reasonably legislature be intent. it contended Can Boeing corporate officers of the Com- intended to treat Weyerhaeuser pany Company as and the workmen/em- ployees question The answers under 51.08.180-.185? itself. proviso clearly set
The for the was forth rationale hearing proposed in his decision and order: examiner part enacting portion of RCW has been 51.32.030 inception Compensation Act since its Workmen's (Laws 3). provision, Ch. Sec. Under this corpo- employers officers, members of a individual employer, under rate not entitled to benefits were pre- they payroll in on the Act scribed manner. There were carried unless requirement express that was no per- injured premiums paid on the be to the injury, pay prior matter, that or for that son's to an Depart- employer ment with the even have an active account required injury. it to the Nor was even Furthermore, in written form. even where the the Department, with the had an active account paying premiums, payment his to the and was therefore Department men rather premium upon simply the total number of was based engaged particular in a class of hazardous work upon listing each individual name whom a than paid. Upon injury of a offi- presented problem member, cer or identification and verification as to whether or not such there would be person fact upon premium whom a was in was one those being paid. upon apparent enactment, it As stood posed impossible, difficult, if not administrative statute problems added Ch. Department. legislature for the (Laws proviso portion of the statute 1). Sec. The Senate Journal of 1917 discloses (Senate 317) proviso that the Bill was introduced at the Department's request. completely It remedies the afore- enacting mentioned omissions and standing legislature vidual defective from the members defects clause illogical suppose alone. It would be that the remedy apply only intended such to "indi- employers" thereby leave the statute still standpoint of its administration as to corporations. officers protect While we should be mindful of the need to *18 injured workmen/employees, ignore we should not by judicial overall intent of the statute and fiat overturn years legislation corporate offi- more than 66 and declare workmen/employees. cers are now plaintiff implicit I
While share the concern for opinion majority, the fact is that he and the other corporation—three officers and shareholders of the num- pay not to industrial insur- ber—made a considered choice premiums, plaintiff suffering consequences. ance easily Coverage plaintiff obtainable and a reason- plus reading of Farr would able review of the statutes way. have shown the liberally agree construed.
I RCW Title 51 should however, difference, between RCW 51.12.010. There is construction and destruction. We should do violence legislative that statute and the scheme contained therein adopting interpretation the strained and unreasonable the majority. JJ.,
Hamilton, Utter, Brachtenbach, concur with J. Dolliver, 29, 1977.] En 44476. Banc. December
[No. Respondent, Washington, The State of v. Gerald Petitioners. Agee, al, Allen et