Bass v. Cowikee Mills
| Decision Date | 06 August 1953 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 727 |
| Citation | 67 So.2d 12,259 Ala. 391 |
| Parties | BASS v. COWIKEE MILLS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Brown & Steagall, Ozark, for appellant.
Chas. O. Stokes and Val. L. McGee, Ozark, for appellee.
Certiorari having been granted on the petition of Albert Bass, plaintiff in the court below, appellant here, this proceedings is to review, within the limitations of certiorari, a judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of Dale County, Alabama, denying compensation to the plaintiff in an action under the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Alabama.
This is the second appeal in this case, this court having previously reversed the case solely on the ground that the trial judge failed to make a finding of fact as required by Section 304, Tit. 26, Code of 1940. The former appeal is reported in 257 Ala. 280, 58 So.2d 589.
After the case was remanded to the lower court, it was tried again before the Circuit Court of Dale County, and was submitted on the testimony and the record of the first trial and additional testimony of the appellant.
The gravamen of appellant's cause of action is stated in his complaint as follows:
'that he slipped or stumbled and fell against the end of a broom handle while he was sweeping the floor in Defendant's mill at Ozark, Alabama; as a result of said injuries he lost the sight of his right eye, and as to all of which the Defendant has had due notice.'
The defendant in the court below, appellee here, relied on two defenses to the stated cause of action: First, that appellant failed to give notice to the employer of the accident, as provided by Title 26, Sections 294-295, Code of Alabama 1940; and, second, that appellant did not lose the vision in his eye as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; but that if appellant did lose the vision in his eye, it was the result of a non-occupational disease.
The trial judge, after hearing the testimony ore tenus, resolved the issues raised by the pleadings in favor of the defendant in the court below. He found, as a fact, that the appellant did not give notice to the employer of the accident which he claims destroyed the sight of his right eye. The trial court also found, as a fact, that appellant did not lose the vision of his eye as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
We pretermit a discussion of the question of notice to the employer for the simple reason that if the loss of appellant's vision in his right eye was not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellee, he would not be entitled to recover.
On certiorari to review judgments in compensation cases, this court will not look to 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 trial court, and this rule applies when the award or compensation is denied as well as where there has been a judgment favorable to the plaintiff. Our review here on certiorari is confined to questions of law apparent upon the face of the record. Ex parte W. T. Smith Lumber Co., 206 Ala. 485, 90 So. 807; Ex parte Jagger Coal Co., 211 Ala. 11, 99 So. 99; Ex parte Big Four Coal Mining Co., 213 Ala. 305, 104 So. 764; Warrior Stone & Contracting Co. v. De Foor, 241 Ala. 227, 2 So.2d 430; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 241 Ala. 476, 3 So.2d 46; H. C. Price Co. v. Lee, 249 Ala. 230, 30 So.2d 579; Riddle v. Smith, 252 Ala. 369, 41 So.2d 288; Swift & Co. v. Rolling, 252 Ala. 536, 42 So.2d 6; Hamilton Motor Co. v. Cooner, 254 Ala. 422, 47 So.2d 270; Bullard v. Cullman Heading Co., 220 Ala. 143, 124 So. 200; Cohen v. Birmingham Fabricating Co., 224 Ala. 67, 139 So. 97; Baughn v. Little Cahaba Coal Co., 213 Ala. 596, 105 So. 648; Ex parte Shaw, 210 Ala. 185, 97 So. 694.
Where testimony is conflicting, but there is testimony supporting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wynn, 6 Div. 606
...finding of the trial court in proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, such finding is conclusive. * * *' Bass v. Cowikee Mills, 259 Ala. 391, 393, 67 So.2d 12, 13, and cases there The foregoing principle applies in reviewing the trial court's finding of fact with respect to the em......
-
Bell v. General American Transp Corp.
...judgment rendered thereon will not be disturbed. Baggett Transp. Co. v. Holderfield, 260 Ala. 56, 59, 68 So.2d 21; Bass v. Cowikee Mills, 259 Ala. 391, 393, 67 So.2d 12; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, 249 Ala. 675, 678, 32 So.2d 666; Houser v. Young, 247 Ala. 562, 563, 25 So.2d 421; Slos......
-
Braswell v. Brooks
...finding of the trial court in proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, such finding is conclusive. * * *' Bass v. Cowikee Mills, 259 Ala. 391, 393, 67 So.2d 12, 13, and cases there V. The parties appear to be in agreement that the award should have been in the amount of $18 per wee......
-
Head v. Triangle Const. Co., 2 Div. 423
...law apparent upon the face of the record. Simpson v. Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Co., 269 Ala. 635, 114 So.2d 918; Bass v. Cowikee Mills, 259 Ala. 391, 67 So.2d 12. There is ample evidence to support the findings of the trial court and the case is due to be, and is, Affirmed. LAWSON, ......