Chappell v. Morris & Company
Decision Date | 11 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 25,518 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | RICHARD CHAPPELL, Appellant, v. MORRIS & COMPANY, Appellee |
Decided January, 1925.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; WILLIAM H MCCAMISH, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Injuries Within Act--Loss of Time. In an action for compensation for personal injury under the workmen's compensation act, the evidence disclosed that plaintiff lost no time by reason of the injury "from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed." Held, a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was properly sustained.
J. H. Brady, and T. F. Railsback, both of Kansas City, for the appellant.
C. W. Trickett, of Kansas City, for the appellee.
This is an action for compensation for personal injuries under the workmen's compensation act. The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and he has appealed.
The evidence tended to show that on or about July 15, 1921, the plaintiff, while working for defendant, met with an accident to his eye. He was breaking a drum of lye by striking it with a sledge hammer, when a small piece of the lye flew up into his eye. He went to the nurse at the plant, who treated the eye and bandaged it. He told the nurse, "I am going home until this eye gets well--the doctor pronounces it well--and I want you people to pay me straight time." The nurse advised him not to go home, but to see his foreman. He then went to the foreman and wanted to go home because his eye was paining him. The foreman told him if he went home he would be discharged. He then said to the foreman: The foreman answered: He did not go home, but returned to his work. He wore a bandage over the eye for two or three weeks, but lost no time at his work, and continued to work until a strike of workmen was called in defendant's plant on December 3, at which time he went out on a strike. On February 10, 1922, he went to see defendant's claim agent, where he signed up the following statement:
He testified that he did not read this statement and did not know its contents when he signed it, and that it was not correct; that on the day of his injury he thought his foreman was the claim agent and was so informed by the foreman; also that his eye was much inflamed and pained him severely for some time after the injury; that it still troubled him when he worked outdoors in the light, but gave no trouble when he worked inside where the light was not so strong. There was evidence that when the eye was examined in September, 1923, there was found a condition of myopia (extreme length of the eyeball from front to back) in a high degree, which condition might have been caused by inflammation following an injury. This condition affects the vision to some extent and is permanent. On March 11, 1922, a formal claim for compensation was made.
The question presented is whether this evidence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
...828, 339 P.2d 5 (1959); Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 145 Kan. 273, Syl. P 1, 65 P.2d 284 (1937); Chappell v. Morris & Co., 118 Kan. 210, 212, 235 P. 117 (1925); Moeser v. Shunk, 116 Kan. 247, 251, 226 P. 784 (1924). The employee, as well as the employer, is bound by the rules......
-
Hormann v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
...Airplane Co., 188 Kan. 722, 729, 366 P.2d 246 (1961); Walz v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co., 130 Kan. 203, 285 P. 595; and Chappell v. Morris & Co., 118 Kan. 210, 235 P. 117 (1925). Once it is determined that the employment relationship is covered by the Act, the rights and liabilities of the part......
-
Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.
... ... claimant, opposed by the St. Louis Smelting & Refining ... Company, employer. From a judgment affirming an award of the ... Commissioner, employer appeals ... 247, 226 P. 784; ... Johnson, Guardian, v. Milling Co., 116 Kan. 731, 229 ... P. 359; Chappell v. Morris & Co., 118 Kan. 210, 235 ... P. 117; McDonnell v. Swift & Co., 124 Kan. 327, 259 ... P ... ...
-
Echord v. Rush
... ... holding was followed and applied in Moeser v. Shunk, ... 116 Kan. 247, 251, 226 P. 784; Chappell v. Morris & ... Co., 118 Kan. 210, 212, 235 P. 117; Hines v ... Dahn, 267 F. 105, 114; Hawkins ... ...
-
CHAPTER 6
...v. Boeing Airplane Co., 188 Kan. 722, 729, 366 P.2d 246 (1961); Walz v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 130 Kan. 203; and Chappell v. Morris & Co., 118 Kan. 210, 235 Pac. 117 (1925). Once it is determined that the employment relationship is covered by the Act, the rights and liabilities of the partie......