Section 11 provides as follows:
“Employers subject to this act, who shall fail to comply with the provisions of §§ 6 and 7 hereof, shall not be entitled to the benefits of this act during the period of such noncompliance but shall be liable to their employees for damages suffered by reason of injuries sustained in the course of employment, and also to the personal representatives of such employees where death results from such injuries, and in such action the defendant shall not avail himself or itself of the following common-law defenses:
“The defense of the fellow-servant rule, the defense of the assumption of risk or the defense of contributory negligence.”
Section 20 provides as follows:
“When an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this act shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the North Dakota workmen’s compensation fund a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee, or his dependents, may, at his or their option, either claim compensation under this act or obtain damages from or proceed at law against such other person to recover damages.”
It is the contention of the defendant that the Compensation Act abrogates all remedies and causes of action theretofore existing by statute for death by unlawful act, and permits only the remedies and causes of action stated in such act; that § 11 of this act denominates only the personal representative as the proper party to maintain an action for death of the employee, against the employer. It may be conceded that the personal representative is a proper party to maintain such action. However, pursuant to the terms of the statute, is the maintenance of an action by one of the dependents excluded? I am of the opinion, pursuant to § 20 thereof, that the maintenance of an action by a dependent of the employee is not excluded, but, on the contrary, is specifically permitted. In this case the father is a dependent, and, pursuant to the evidence introduced, was, in fact, a dependent of his deceased son.
From the record it appears that the defendant, a storekeeper, had in his employ the deceased son, 16 years of age, and another boy, 13 years oi age. These boys at times were left in charge of the store. The loaded revolver was left, or permitted to be left, by the employer in a cash drawer to which the boys were directed to resort when necessary in trading operations. There it had not been casually placed; there it had
