Chiericozzi v. Comp.Comm'r
Decision Date | 24 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 9307.,9307. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | CHIERICOZZI . v. COMPENSATIONCOMMISSIONER et al. |
1. "Willful violation by an employee of a statute designed for his protection is will-ful misconduct under Code 1931, 23-4-2, which forbids compensation for an injury caused by such misconduct." Carbon Fuel Ob. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 203, 164 S.E. 27.
2. In the absence of a showing of acquiescence therein by an employer, the wilful disobedience by an employee of rules and regulations, designed for his protection, promulgated by the employer, approved by the Compensation Commissioner, and posted and kept posted in conspicuous places about the works, will, under Code, 23-4-2, prevent allowance of compensation for an injury which is the result of such disobedience.
Error to Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Sam Chiericozzi, claimant, opposed by the Compensation Commissioner and others. To review an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, granting an award, the compensation commissioner and others bring error.
Reversed and remanded.
Sale, St. Clair & Sale, of Welch, for appellants.
Clarence S. Worrell, of Pineville, and Albert A. Barley, of Welch, for appellee.
FOX, President.
The claimant, Sam Chiericozzi, was injured in the mines of the Koppers Coal Company, resulting in the loss of his left hand. At that time, he was employed as a track man. He had been in the employ of the company and its predecessors for some fourteen years, and had engaged in various types of employment, including that of running a motor and loading coal. The accident occurred on the afternoon of June 7, 1940. The claimant had completed his work shift for that day, and had gone to one of the entries to await the arrival of what is known as a man trip, a group of empty coal cars used exclusively for the purpose of carrying workmen to and from the working places in the mine. Other employees were waiting at the same place with a like purpose. The man trip was late in arriving. At this point a loaded trip, consisting of 23 cars, hauled by two electric motors, one in front and one at the rear, came along, and the claimant, in alleged violation of statute and company rules, boarded the rear motor, which was operated by a motorman's assistant. This assistant knew that the claimant was not permitted to ride on the motor, but, without objection, permitted him to do so. The trip proceeded for a distance, when it stopped to pick up additional cars, at which time either the motorman or the claimant threw a switch so that the eight cars could be picked up by the rear motor. When this was done, claimant again climbed on the motor, and in proceeding to catch up with the main trip, that is, the twenty-three cars pulled by the motor in front, there was a collision, and the claimant was thrown from the motor, and, in some manner, one of the cars rolled over his hand, causing the injury, and his left hand was later amputated about two inches above the wrist joint. The details of the accident are not material, except to show that the injury to the claimant was the direct result of his having boarded the motor instead of waiting for the regular trip.
The employer defends on the ground that claimant was guilty of wilful misconduct, and wilful disobedience of rules and regulations adopted by it, and approved by the Compensation Commissioner. The claimant would escape this defense, first, by asserting that he had no knowledge of the statute, nor the rules adopted thereunder, and the further claim that any violations of the statute or rules, of which he may have been guilty, were acquiesced in by the employer, and, therefore, it is not entitled to ask that the provisions of Code, 23-4-2, be enforced against him. The Compensation Commissioner denied the claim. The Compensation Appeal Board, by a divided vote, reversed the Commissioner on the ground that the claimant "being a general utility man for the Koppers Coal Company at the time of his injury, was permitted to ride motors, run motors, brake for motors, and lay and repair tracks, which was well known to the mine foreman and other foremen, and was injured without any fault of his own, and is therefore entitled to compensation."
Inasmuch as this case must be decided under Code, 23-4-2, we quote the pertinent provisions thereof: "Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore or hereinafter contained, no employee * * * shall be entitled to receive any sum from the workmen's compensation fund * * * on account of any personal injury to or death of any employee caused by * * * wil-ful misconduct, wilful disobedience to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the employer and approved by the commissioner, and which rules and regulations have been and are kept posted in conspicuous places in and about the work
The claim of wilful misconduct is based upon alleged violation of the mining laws of the state, as set out in article 2 of chapter 22 of the Code, and particularly sections 61 and 62, which we quote:
(61)
(62) "No person, except the persons necessary to operate the trip or car, shall ride on any loaded car or on the outside of any car, or get on or off a car while in motion."
The contention that claimant was guilty of wilful disobedience is based upon the violations of rules 1, 7 and 10, alleged to have been promulgated by the employer, approved by the Compensation Commissioner and kept posted, and which read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. State Compensation Com'r
...Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 203, pt. 1 syl., 164 S.E. 27; Chiericozzi v. Compensation Commissioner, 124 W.Va. 213, pt. 1 syl., 19 S.E.2d 590. As a corollary to this rule, it was held in Prince v. Compensation Commissioner, supra, pt. 2 syl., that: 'Acts and conduct of an employee v......
-
Morris v. State Compensation Com'r
...provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Miller v. Compensation Com'r, 126 W.Va. 78, 81, 27 S.E.2d 586; Chiericozzi v. Compensation Com'r, 124 W.Va. 213, 217, 19 S.E.2d 590; Lester v. Compensation Com'r, 123 W.Va. 516, 520, 16 S.E.2d 920, 923; Prince v. State Compensation Com'r, 123 W.......
-
Thompson v. State Comp. Comm'r, (No. 10134)
...The Carbon Fuel Company v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W. Va. 203, pt. 1 syl., 164 S. E. 27; Chiericozzi v. State Compensation Commissioner, 124 W. Va. 213, pt. 1 syl., 19 S. E. 2d 590. As a corollary to this rule, it was held in Prince v. State Compensation Commissioner, supra, pt......
-
Barta v. State Comp. Comm'r Et At., (No. 9794)
...and in willful disobedience thereof." To the same effect is Young v. Compensation Commissioner, supra, and Chiericozzi v. Compensation Commissioner, 124 W. Va. 213, 19 S.E. 2d 590. The record discloses that a copy of the State Mining Law was delivered to Louis Barta, and we think such deliv......