Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. Allen
Citation | 210 S.W. 467,183 Ky. 815 |
Parties | BATES & ROGERS CONST. CO. ET AL. v. ALLEN. |
Decision Date | 28 March 1919 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mason County.
Proceeding by Henry Allen under Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for injury, opposed by the Bates & Rogers Construction Company, employer. From judgment of circuit court awarding compensation, on appeal by employé from a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Board denying compensation, the employer and the Workmen's Compensation Board appeal. Judgment of circuit court affirmed.
Fred Forcht, of Louisville, and Stanley Reed, of Maysville, for appellants.
Chas H. Morris, Atty. Gen., and D. M. Howerton, Asst. Atty. Gen A. D. Cole, of Maysville, and Lawrence Leopold, of Louisville, for appellee.
This case, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1916, c 33), is brought here by the employer, Bates & Rogers Construction Company, from the Mason circuit court, to which an appeal was prosecuted from the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board by the appellee, Henry Allen, who had been denied compensation by the board.
There is no dispute about the facts, which are substantially as follows: Henry Allen was in the employ of the appellant Bates & Rogers Construction Company at lock and dam No. 33 on the Ohio river near Maysville, Ky. during the month of November, 1916. He went from Louisville, Ky. where he obtained the employment through the agency of the state free employment office, to Maysville, and about four days after he commenced work for the construction company received the injury for which he claimed compensation.
He testified before the board on the hearing of his claim that the injury happened in this manner:
"Well, I was tearing up the dinky track, the one the little engine hauls on, hauls the cars, and working on a kind of trestle; the men would take up the rail and carry it back, and where the angle iron holds them together they wouldn't come apart; there was a big, heavy fellow, called Cobb, and he was hitting on these pieces of iron that held the rail together with a sledge, to loosen them, so I could get them apart, and something flew up and hit me in the eye, and that's the way I got hurt."
Asked as to whom he told about it and what occurred afterwards, he testified as follows:
?
John Reed, who was a laborer with Allen, testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. St. Joseph Lead Company, 6557
...... 1102; Beaver v. Morrison-Knudsen, Co., supra; Bates & Rogers. Const. Co. v. Allen, 183 Ky. 815, 210 S.W. 467.). . . ......
-
Schrabauer v. Schneider Engraving Product
......v. Ind. Comm., 140 N.E. 26, 309. Ill. 43; Vange Const. Co. v. Marcoccia, 140 A. 712,. 154 Md. 401; Simmons v. Holcomb, 120 ...509; McClanahen v. Oklahoma Ry. Co., 267 P. 657; Rogers v. Ry., 225 P. 108, 115. Kans. 815. (2) The employee's claim for ...Ind. Board, 114 N.E. 496, 276 Ill. 262; Bates & Rogers. Const. Co. v. Allen, 210 S.W. 467; In re. Murphy, 226 Mass. ......
-
Reeves v. Fraser-Brace Engineering Co.
......App.), 49 S.W.2d 236,. 239; Allison v. Eyermann Const. Co. (Mo. App.), 43. S.W.2d 1063; Bates v. Brown Shoe Co., 342 Mo. ...225; Bergerons' Case, 243 Mass. 366, 137. N.E. 739; Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. Allen, 183. Ky. 815, 210 S.W. 467; Mills v. Dinnington ......
-
Page v. State Insurance Fund, 5968
...... and does not mean the first hand knowledge of an. eye-witness." (Allen v. Millville, 87 N.J.L. 356, 95 A. 130.). . . BUDGE,. C. J. ... reasonably anticipated to result from it. (Bates &. Rogers Const. Co. v. Emmons, 205 Ky. 21, 265 S.W. 447,. 448.) The ......