Columbine Laundry Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado

• Decision Date: 07 May 1923
• Docket Number: 10563.
• Parties: COLUMBINE LAUNDRY CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

215 P. 870

73 Colo. 397

COLUMBINE LAUNDRY CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.

No. 10563.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 7, 1923

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1923.

Department 1.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Clarence J Morley, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Anna Pedersen and others, to recover compensation for death in the course of employment, opposed by the Columbine Laundry Company employer, and the Continental Casualty Company, insurance carrier. An award of the Industrial Commission was affirmed by the district court, and the employer and insurance carrier bring error.

Affirmed.

Arthur H. Laws, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Russell W. Fleming, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. O'Connell, Asst Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

ALLEN J.

This cause is before us to review a judgment of the district court of the city and county of Denver affirming an order and award of the Industrial Commission in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1919, p. 700).

The claimants are the dependents of a deceased employee. The decedent was employed as an auto mechanic. The referee found, and the finding is not questioned, that while repairing an automobile on the morning of April 10, 1922, the employee inhaled exhaust gas from the machine. This happened in the course of his employment.

The question presented to us by the record is whether there are sufficient findings to sustain an award in favor of the claimants upon the theory that the death of the employee was proximately caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Other conditions necessary to establish the right to compensation are not involved here.

Relevant to the question above mentioned, the findings contain the following statements:

'On the morning of April 10, A. D. 1922, Pedersen was working upon the ignition system of one of the trucks, * * * from about 8 o'clock until 12 noon. In the course of his work he would start and stop the car. * * * In doing this he inhaled the exhaust coming from the automobile. The weather * * * was rather cool. The garage on this particular day was kept closed. * * * At 1:30 he was taken sick. His condition prior to this time had been good. * * * Decedent worked the following day, but came home earlier than usual, went to bed, and remained in bed until the date of his death on April 27, A. D. 1922. His death was caused by pneumonia. * * *

'The referee is of the opinion, from the facts, that the decedent inhaled an extra large amount of auto gas during the forenoon of April 10, A. D. 1922, and that his condition during the afternoon of April 10, A. D. 1922, and the remainder of that week can and should be attributed to inhalation of auto gas. Further, that this was an accident as defined by law, and that it so weakened his vitality that he was unable to throw off the pneumonia which later developed and that his death may thus be ascribed to his accident of April 10, A. D. 1922.'

It is claimed that the findings are insufficient because the referee does not state what was the 'condition' of the employee, and that he should have stated that the condition was pneumonia. We think the findings sufficiently indicate that. It is next pointed out that the referee finds that the condition 'can and...