Warrior Stone & Contracting Co. v. De Foor

• Decision Date: 22 May 1941
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 799.
• Citation: 2 So.2d 430,241 Ala. 227
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: WARRIOR STONE & CONTRACTING CO. et al. v. DE FOOR.

2 So.2d 430

241 Ala. 227

WARRIOR STONE & CONTRACTING CO. et al. v. DE FOOR.

6 Div. 799.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 22, 1941

London & Yancey and Fred G. Koenig, Sr., all of Birmingham, for appellants.

Wm S. Pritchard, David R. Solomon, Winston B. McCall, and A. W Jones, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

This is a petition for certiorari to review and revise the judgment of the circuit court in a workman's compensation case against the employer, Warrior Stone & Contracting Company, and its insurance carrier, the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company.

The case was tried on a verified petition as last amended and verified answer thereto. This proceeding for review does not question the pleadings.

Be it remembered that in a case like this we are not dealing with the preponderance of the evidence. That is to say, the rule is that in a compensation case, when the review in this court is by certiorari, as here, this court will not look to the bill of exceptions to find the weight of the evidence as to any fact found by the trial court, but simply to see if there is any evidence to support facts found by the court. If, on any reasonable view of the evidence, it will support the conclusions reached by the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 240 Ala. 422, 199 So. 813; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 3 So.2d 46; Agricola Furnace Co. v. Smith, 239 Ala. 488, 195 So. 743; Woodward Iron Co. v. Vines, 217 Ala. 369 116 So. 514; Ex parte Coleman, 211 Ala. 248, 100 So. 114 115.

And, on petition to review by certiorari, the judgment under the Workmen's Compensation Law, this court, to ascertain whether the finding of facts are supported by any evidence, will look to the bill of exceptions. Woodward Iron Co. v. Vines, supra; Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean, 217 Ala. 530, 117 So. 52, 60 A.L.R. 536; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watts et al., 236 Ala. 636, 184 So. 201.

Expert opinions of witnesses are not conclusive on the triers of the fact, though uncontroverted, but the same may be disregarded unless it is a matter for experts only and the triers of fact cannot be assumed to have or be able to form a correct opinion concerning such matter.

Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 228 Ala. 377, 380, 153 So. 755; 9 Alabama Digest, Evidence, + 570; George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602.

The finding of fact by and conclusions of the court, among other things, in this case, were:

"The petitioner was examined in open Court by medical experts, and the Court personally viewed the Petitioner, personally noted his injury, observed the examination by the Doctors, and the experimentation by the Doctors with the petitioner, as to his ability to stand, as to his ability to walk, as well as the shape and condition of his leg and body. From these personal observations by the Court, and from all of the evidence bearing upon the nature and extent of the petitioner's injury and disability, the Court finds as a fact that as a proximate consequence of the petitioner's said injuries as of the day of trial of this cause, and continuously from the date of his said injury to said date, he has been unable to stand on his feet for any length of...