DocketNumber: 80-503
Citation Numbers: 410 So. 2d 19
Judges: Faulkner, Torbert
Filed Date: 2/5/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/9/2024
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Ex parteYoungblood, [MS. March 27, 1981] (Ala. 1981), is directly applicable to the facts of this case to toll the one-year statute of limitations found in Code 1975, §
The representations of an employer or its insurance carrier may be such as to estop them from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim for workmen's compensation, if the employer or the carrier, or their representatives, in their dealings with the claimant, conduct themselves in such a manner, whether innocently or fraudulently, as to mislead the claimant into believing that he can postpone the filing of his claim until the period of limitation has expired. Whether the employer or the carrier, or their representatives were primarily responsible for the delay is a fact question for the factfinder at the trial level. We also hold that the question of whether a person is a representative of the employer or the carrier is essentially one of fact also. This construction of the limitations provisions of the workmen's compensation statute is in accordance with the well recognized rule that the workmen's compensation law must be liberally construed in furtherance of its beneficent and humanitarian purposes. [emphasis supplied].Ex parte Youngblood. From this quotation it is plain that this holding was limited to employer-employee situations. When theemployer is primarily responsible for the injured party's delay in bringing the action, the courts will hold that the employer is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations. Obviously, this action is not an employer-employee situation and Youngblood will not apply.
The second distinction is that Youngblood was construing the workmen's compensation laws, which are to be construed liberally. Ex parte Youngblood, [MS. March 27, 1981] (Ala. 1981); Gilmore v. Rust Engineering Co.,
In City of Montgomery v. Weldon,
The plaintiffs here do not make a claim of intentional deception practiced by the county. They do not claim that the county actively urged them not to file a lawsuit or consult an attorney. Since the decision of Ex parte Youngblood is inapplicable, then the standards set out in Seybold v. MagnoliaLand Co.,
MADDOX and ALMON, JJ., concur. *Page 23