Maryland case law › Lease v. Upper Potomac River Commission

Lease v. Upper Potomac River Commission

179 Md. 543 (1941) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedSLOAN, J.✓ Good law
HoldingHenry W.

SLOAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Henry W. Lease, the appellant, brought suit against his employer, the Upper Potomac River Commission, a Maryland corporation created under the Act of 1935, ch. 409, for injuries sustained by him by reason of the defective and unsafe condition of a truck of the defendant by which he was injured, and of the negligence of a fellow employee of the Commission who was driving the truck. The defendant demurred to the declaration generally and on the ground that the Upper Potomac River Commission is a governmental agency and, therefore, not suable. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff appealed.

The demurrer should have been sustained, but on the allegations of the declaration and the Act of 1935, ch. 409, on another ground than that urged by the appellee in its brief. In passing upon an appeal, this court is not confined to the reasons assigned by the counsel or court. Sothoron v. Weems, 3 G. & J. 435, 441 ; Parker v. Sedwick, 4 Gill 318 ; Ellicott v. Turner, 4 Md. 476, 485 . The court gave no reason, so the assumption is that any or every reason was held by it for its action.

Code art. 5, sec. 10. It is admitted by the declaration that the plaintiff is an employee of the Commission, which is engaged in the construction of what is known in Western Maryland as the Savage River Dam Project, located in Garrett County. This being true, the plaintiff and defendant would come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, Code, art. 101, by which section 46, “Whenever the State, county or city or any municipality shall engage in any extra-hazardous work, within the meaning of this Article, whether for pecuniary gain or otherwise, in which workmen are employed 545 for wages, this Article shall be applicable thereto,” and we, therefore, assume, in the absence of any allegation of the declaration to the contrary, that the Upper Potomac River Commission has complied with the provisions of article 101 in providing or

This is a preview of Lease v. Upper Potomac River Commission. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.