American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Hardy
| Citation | 137 S.E. 113,36 Ga.App. 487 |
| Docket Number | 17413. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1927 |
| Parties | AMERICAN MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. et al. v. HARDY. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court.
It cannot be said that the Industrial Commission failed to make any findings of fact in this case, or that the facts found do not support the award of compensation.
There was sufficient evidence to authorize the conclusion that the injury and death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Rule 26 of the industrial commission, laying down the conditions upon which the full commission will hear evidence on review, is to be enforced or relaxed in the discretion of the commission without interference by the courts. For no reason urged was the award of compensation illegal. The superior court did not err in denying the appeal.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1920, p. 167) by J. W. Hardy for the death of Harry Hardy, employé, opposed by the Atlanta Woolen Mills, employer, and the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurance carrier. To review a judgment of the superior court, affirming an award of compensation by the Industrial Commission, the insurer and employer bring error. Affirmed.
McDaniel & Neely and Harry L. Greene, all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Shackelford & Shackelford, of Athens, for defendant in error.
This case is here upon exceptions to a judgment of the superior court of Fulton county, denying an appeal from an award of compensation to the dependents of Harry Hardy, a 17 year old boy, who, for about 5 weeks prior to his death, had been employed by Atlanta Woolen Mills as a weaver, on the third floor of his employer's factory. On April 20, 1925, at about (either a few minutes before or just after) the end of the lunch hour, he was discovered pinned between the elevator and the fourth floor (or the overhead ceiling of the next room below) of the four-story building, with his stomach or chest against the edge of the elevator floor, his face downward, and with the remainder of his body hanging outside the elevator and over the shaft. There was no eyewitness to the accident, and the decedent made no statement before dying, as to how he happened to be on the elevator or thus to get caught in it. There was a regular elevator operator, but there was evidence that other employees would on occasion run the elevator themselves when the regular operator was absent if they were in need of material for their work, but all were expressly warned never to use the elevator under any other circumstances. The elevator was a freight elevator, not intended for passenger service, although it was shown in the evidence that employees would sometimes use it, in the absence of the regular operator, merely to avoid climbing the stairs. The supply room was on the second floor, and from that place only did the decedent procure materials needed in his work on the third floor. The second floor was level with the ground in the front of the building, while the first floor was level with the ground in the rear.
When work was suspended for the lunch hour the elevator was left at the second floor. No one accounts for it from that time until it was discovered in the stationary position just below the fourth floor, with the decedent hanging from it, injured. The decedent had never been known to use the elevator, or to attempt to do so, by himself. There is no evidence that he even understood how to operate it. It seems that he was not using it at this time for the purpose of conveying materials. There was no material on it. The elevator shaft was situated some 15 or more feet from the stairway, and the entrance to the elevator from each floor was through a gate, which was kept closed, except when opened to admit freight or passengers. So far as appears, it would have been more convenient and more expeditious for the decedent to have gone up the one flight of stairs from the second floor to the third floor than to have undertaken to go up on the elevator. Five minutes before the close of the lunch hour a whistle was blown as a notice that work time was near. Then, at the expiration of that period, a like signal was blown, at which all employees were supposed to begin work. There was some evidence to the effect that the decedent was a little late in returning to his work, and had not entered the building at the second whistle, but was "hurrying to get there."
On the original hearing before one commissioner, compensation was denied. Thereafter the claimant, having obtained a review before the full commission, asked to submit additional evidence. This request was granted, though over the objection of the employer and the insurance carrier. After thus hearing additional testimony and considering it, with that which had previously been taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial