Cambria Coal Co. v. Ault

• Decision Date: 18 November 1933
• Citation: Cambria Coal Co. v. Ault, 64 S.W.2d 18, 166 Tenn. 567 (Tenn. 1933)
• Parties: CAMBRIA COAL CO. v. AULT.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

64 S.W.2d 18

CAMBRIA COAL CO. v.AULT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 18, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anderson County; H. B. Brown, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Gretchen Ault, petitioner, for the death of her husband, employee, opposed by the Cambria Coal Company, employer.From a judgment awarding compensation to petitioner, the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

J. H. Underwood and Ben F. Alexander, both of Clinton, for Cambria Coal Co.

Hartman, Hartman & Doughty, of Knoxville, and A. L. Fox, of Clinton, for Gretchen Ault.

CHAMBLISS, Justice.

The only question presented on this appeal from a compensation award in favor of petitioner, Gretchen Ault, whose husband was adjudged in the trial court to have died as the result of an accident while employed in the mines of the coal company, is whether or not the death was the result of an accident, or resulted from pre-existing disease.

This is a question of fact, as to which the finding of the trial judge will not be disturbed by this court, if there is material evidence to support it.

Ault had been transferred from another place of work in the mines on the morning of his death to assist Jack Pruitt in loading coal into the tramway cars in the mines.A part of their duty was to push these cars some distance, a portion of which was up a considerable grade.It appears that after pushing one of the cars, which Pruitt testifies was a somewhat heavier load than usual, deceased showed some signs of a strain by his panting for breath, and a moment later after having addressed a remark to Pruitt, passed around the car, and giving out evidences of extreme distress, sank down and died within ten minutes.In addition to this evidence of a strain which affected his physical condition, and resulted in his death, the testimony of one or more physicians showed that his death resulted from acute dilation of the heart, which, according to the testimony, was likely to result from overexertion such as is described to have taken place.

However, the proof further shows that the deceased had what might be described as a chronic condition of heart weakness which made him more susceptible naturally to fatal consequences in case of such overexertion, and it is insisted that his death was not therefore chargeable to accident, and therefore compensable, but rather to this diseased condition.We are of opinion that, under the holdings in this state and generally, the trial judge was...