Bramble v. Shields

• Decision Date: 14 December 1924
• Docket Number: 14.
• Citation: 127 A. 44,146 Md. 494
• Parties: BRAMBLE ET AL. v. SHIELDS ET UX.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

127 A. 44

146 Md. 494

BRAMBLE ET AL. v. SHIELDS ET UX.

No. 14.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 14, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Frederick County; Glenn H. Worthington Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act by William Shields and Mrs. William S. Shields, his wife and next friend, against John T. Bramble and the Associated Employers' Reciprocal. Denial of award of commission was reversed by the circuit court, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The following are the prayers and exception referred to in the opinion:

Appellants' First Prayer.

The appellants pray the court to instruct the jury that, if they find from all the evidence in this case that the present disability of William Shields is directly attributable, with reasonable certainty, to the accidental personal injury sustained by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, then their verdict as to the first issue shall be for the appellants, and their answers to said first issue shall be "Yes."

(Granted as amended.)

(Filed November 20, 1920.)

And the defendants offered the following special exceptions to the claimant's first prayer as modified:

The defendants except generally to the granting of the appellants' first prayer as modified, and specially except to the granting of said prayer because: (1) It submits a question of law to the jury; and (2) because there is no evidence in this case legally sufficient to show that the present disability of William Shields is directly attributable, with reasonable certainty, to the accidental personal injury received by him on June 27, 1922.

Jacob Rohrback,

Edward H. Burke, Attys. for Defendants.

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

And the defendants offered the following prayers:

Defendants' First Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence in this case legally sufficient to show that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is the natural result of the injury received by him while in the employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922, and therefore their verdict as to the first issue must be for the defendants, and their answer to said issue must be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Second Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence in this case legally sufficient to show that William Shields is temporarily totally disabled by reason of the injuries received by him while in the employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922, and therefore their verdict as to the second issue must be for the defendants, and their answers to said issue must be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Third Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence in this case legally sufficient to show that William Shields is permanently totally disabled by reason of the injuries received by him while in the employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922, and therefore their verdict as to the Third Issue must be for the defendants, and their answers to said issue must be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Fourth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that the undisputed evidence in this case is that William Shields is now suffering with a mental disease, and that his present disability is the result thereof, and, there being no evidence in this case legally sufficient to show that said mental disease is the natural result of the injuries received by said William Shields on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, the verdict of the jury as to the second and third issues should be for the defendants, and their answers to each of said issues should be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Fifth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of affirmative evidence, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the mental disease with which Shields is afflicted is the natural result of the injuries received by him while in the employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922, and, if the evidence in this case should be such as to leave the minds of the jury in a state of even balance as to whether said mental disease is the natural result of said injuries, their verdict as to the first issue should be for the defendants; and their answer to said issue should be "No."

And the jury is further instructed that the term "natural result" means such a result as arises naturally; that is, according to the usual course of things.

And the court modified this prayer to read as follows:

Defendants' Fifth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of affirmative evidence, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the mental disease with which Shields is afflicted is the natural result of the injuries received by him while in the employ of John T. Bramble on June 27, 1922, and, if the evidence in this case should be such as to leave the minds of the jury in a state of even balance as to whether said mental disease is the natural result of said injuries, their verdict as to the first issue should be for the defendants, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

And the jury is further instructed that the term "natural result" means that it must be shown that there is a causal connection between the accident and the mental disease of Shields; or that the mental disease with which Shields is suffering is, with reasonable certainty, directly attributable to the accident.

(Granted as amended.)

Defendants' Sixth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that, under the Workmen's Compensation Law only such diseases are compensable as naturally, that is, in the usual course of things, result from accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and, unless the jury find that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is a disease as in the usual course of things results from injuries of such character as were received by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, and unless they further find that said mental disease did, in point of fact, result naturally, that is, according to the usual course of things from said injuries the verdict of the jury, should be for the defendants as to the first issue, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

And the court modified their prayer so as to read as follows:

Defendants' Sixth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that under the Workmen's Compensation Law only such diseases are compensable as naturally result from accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and, unless the jury find that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is a disease naturally resulting from injuries of such character as were received by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, and unless they further find that said mental disease did, in point of fact, result naturally from said injuries, the verdict of the jury should be for the defendants as to the first issue, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

(Granted as amended.)

Defendants' Seventh Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that not every disease which results from accidental injuries received in the course of employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that no provision is made in said law for compensation of disability caused by a disease which is the accidental result of such injuries, and, if the jury find from the evidence in this case that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is an accidental result of the injuries received by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T Bramble, the verdict of the jury as to the first issue should be for the defendants, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Eighth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that not every disease which results from accidental injuries received in the course of employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that no provision is made in said law for compensation of disability caused by a diease which is not the natural result of such injuries, and, if the jury find from the evidence in this case that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is not the natural result of the injuries received by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, the verdict of the jury as to the first issue should be for the defendants, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

(Granted.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Ninth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that not every disease which results from accidental injuries received in the course of employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that no provision is made in said law for such compensation of disability caused by a disease which is the unusual result of such injuries, and, if the jury find from the evidence in this case that the mental disease with which William Shields is afflicted is an unusual result of the injuries received by him on June 27, 1922, while in the employ of John T. Bramble, the verdict of the jury as to the first issue should be for defendants, and their answer to said issue should be "No."

(Rejected.)

(Filed November 20, 1923.)

Defendants' Tenth Prayer.

The court instructs the jury that not every disease which results from accidental injuries received in the course of employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that no provision is made in said law for compensation of disability caused by a...