Baber v. John C. Knipp & Sons

• Decision Date: 18 January 1933
• Docket Number: 24.
• Parties: BABER v. JOHN C. KNIPP & SONS ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

163 A. 862

164 Md. 55

BABER v. JOHN C. KNIPP & SONS ET AL.

No. 24.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 18, 1933

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; George A. Solter, Judge.

Proceeding by Lucy J. Baber to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law for the death of Emmitt A Baber, employee, opposed by John C. Knipp & Sons, employer and the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurer. From a judgment affirming a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission disallowing the claim, claimant appeals.

Reversed and new trial awarded.

BOND C.J., dissenting.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Harry J. Green, of Baltimore (Weinberg & Sweeten and David Friedman, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Rignal W. Baldwin, Jr., of Baltimore (Harold Tschudi and Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

DIGGES, J.

This appeal presents for decision one of the border line cases growing out of the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1924, art. 101 et seq., as amended). The claimant before the commission, and the appellant here, is the widow of Emmitt A. Baber, who was injured January 3, 1928, while in the employ of John C. Knipp & Sons, the insurer being the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, who together are the appellees. Baber died September 6, 1929. The record, while not at all full, indicates, and it is conceded, that the deceased, while working for Knipp & Sons, sustained an accidental injury on January 3, 1928, which produced a hernia; that under the direction and supervision of the appellees he was twice operated upon for that injury; that Baber made application to the Industrial Accident Commission and was awarded compensation, which was paid in full, and a final settlement receipt filed with the commission; that subsequent to the death of Baber, claim for compensation was filed with the commission by the appellant in her own behalf, as wife, and on behalf of three minor children. A hearing was had before the commission, wherein the issue was whether the death of Baber was the result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The finding of the commission, as evidenced by its order of December 8, 1930, was adverse to the appellant, and the claim was disallowed. Appeal was prosecuted from that finding and order to the Baltimore city court on December 17, 1930, which appeal came on for trial in that court before a jury, upon the following single issue: "Was the death of Emmitt A. Baber the result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment?" The jury, under instructions granted by the court, answered the issue, "No," and the court affirmed the decision of the commission. From that judgment the appeal here was prosecuted.

The case was tried in the lower court on the record made before the commission. The record in this court is a condensation in narrative form of the record made before the commission, which is somewhat confusing, and causes difficulty in determining whether certain objections to testimony appearing in the record were made before the commission or before the trial court. There, however, appear to be four exceptions contained in the record to rulings made by the trial court; three to rulings on questions of evidence, and the fourth to the granting of the appellees' "A" prayer at the close of the whole case, requiring the jury to find for the defendants upon the issue in the case.

From the evidence submitted on behalf of the appellant, it appears that the deceased, after the injury producing the hernia, and being twice operated upon, never returned to work; and death ensued from a self-inflicted pistol shot a year and eight months after the accident. Further evidence on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that the deceased, before the accident, was a normal individual both physically and mentally; that he had been married twice; that he was divorced from his first wife, and had been married to the appellant ten years, of which latter marriage there were three children; that the second wife had also been married previously, and a daughter of hers was also a member of the Baber household; that before the accident the deceased was an easy-going and pleasant man in his family, always concerned with their happiness and welfare; that after the accident and two operations for hernia, he became cross, irritable, and disagreeable in his family and toward the neighbors; that from that time he had the unfounded idea that people were after his money; that he made statements that he would never get well, that he would never live to see his children grown, that he was going to commit suicide; that his talk at times was incoherent; that he would be at times conversing rationally, and suddenly would begin to talk about things of which his listeners had no idea; that he visited the insurance company's Baltimore office frequently and insisted upon receiving checks for compensation at times when none was due; that after an agreement of lump settlement for his compensation had been made, he went to the office and demanded his check, and, upon being told that it had to be signed at the home office in Boston, he became enraged, and his actions were such as to so frighten the employees in the office that they called in the police; that about two weeks before his death he had an altercation with a neighbor growing out of a dispute between their children; that the neighbor went into his own home, and, upon return to the yard, was stabbed by the deceased, which resulted in the neighbor being confined to bed; that on the day before his death the deceased went again to that neighbor's home, and when the door was opened by the wife, without any provocation, he shot and wounded her; that on the day of his death he was found in the house of Mrs. Thompson, another neighbor, with whom he had never had any trouble, running through the house, upsetting the dining table, breaking the dishes and furniture, wringing the neck of a canary bird, and doing general damage to the room and furniture, to an extent estimated at $300; that Mrs. Thompson, upon seeing his condition, immediately left to call the police; and later, on that day, the deceased shot and killed himself. The record does not disclose at precisely what time or where the deceased killed himself. The testimony of Mrs. Baber also shows that about six years before his death, and therefore before the accident, the deceased got into an altercation with a drunken man who had chased two young girls into the deceased's yard, in an effort to protect the girls; that this altercation resulted in a civil suit for damages being brought against the deceased, and a verdict against him for $500.

The defendants offered the testimony of the first wife of the deceased, and his son by that marriage. The son's testimony was to the effect that they at one time lived in Richmond, Va., and while there a negro attacked the son, whereupon the deceased rushed out of a barber shop and killed the negro with a razor; that this was in 1905; that his father was a drinking man, but not drinking at the time of that occurrence; that his mother and father separated on account of his father drinking, and his mother went to Washington to live; that while she was living in Washington, his father came there, caught his mother in the house and "tried to cut her throat with a knife"; he did cut her across the shoulder and there were a few stitches taken across her shoulder; he supposes his father was drinking; he did not see him before or after it happened.

As stated, there are three exceptions to the rulings of the court on the testimony, all growing out of the testimony of Dr. Hodes, an expert witness for the appellant. These will be first considered. Dr. Hodes was the last witness for the appellant before the commission. He had been present during the entire progress of the hearing, and had heard all of the testimony up to the time he was called. He was then asked:

"Q. From the evidence you heard, doctor, could you state the mental condition of Mr. Baber at the time of his death?

Opposing counsel: Can you state it yes or no?

Witness: If you allow me I can answer yes, but I will have to qualify it.

Commissioner Crothers: This is all right, doctor.

Witness: It is a known fact that in some individuals undergoing operations that the fear of the results is so great that it really becomes an obsession. Now this man from the evidence shows that he was normal mentally. Following this injury he showed mental changes, which was brought out in the testimony, such reaction as breaking up a woman's house, killing a canary bird and having the obsession that everybody was taking his money and everybody was against him, which all goes to show that the man was mentally unbalanced, and he consummated the whole thing by shooting an innocent woman, which in itself is an abnormal state the man was in. Now we go further--we can realize partly the reason, for this man was a high character man--took well care of his family, and that incident where he protected those two girls showed the moral character of this man. The accident happens and he is unable to make a living for his family and he becomes obsessed with that idea to the point where he became insane and committed suicide. I have seen dozen such cases in hospitals where such things have happened--no fault of the surgeon--it is just the individual.

The Court: Answer to stay in eliminating 'after the accident' as misleading as to time. (Exception noted.)"

This constitutes the first exception. The testimony of the doctor was being read in court as given...