Manke v. Nehalem Logging Co.

My dissent is occasioned primarily by the construction which the majority opinion gives to the following sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and which I hereinafter allude to as the Act. I refer to ORS 656.002 (15) defining the meaning of “workman” as used in the Act and to ORS 656.132 (1) declaring a minor “legally permitted under the laws of this state is considered sui juris” for the purposes of the Act.

The basic statement of the majority with which I cannot agree, reads:

“It will be noted that the above definition of workman [referring to ORS 656.002 (15)] is sufficiently broad to…