Doggett v. South Atl. Warehouse Co

• Decision Date: 15 December 1937
• Docket Number: No. 680.,680.
• Citation: 194 S.E. 111,212 N.C. 599
• Parties: DOGGETT et al. v. SOUTH ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

194 S.E. 111

212 N.C. 599

DOGGETT et al.

v.SOUTH ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE CO. et al.

No. 680.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 1937.

[212 N.C. 112]

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; H. Hoyle Sink, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lucille Doggett, widow, and others, claimants, for the death of Gaither Doggett, employee, opposed by the South Atlantic Warehouse Company, employer, and the General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, insurance carrier.From a judgment finding no error in the award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimants and affirming the award, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

On the 2d day of January, 1937, application was made to the North Carolina Industrial Commission by the plaintiffs herein for a hearing in this matter; that notice of hearing was given and a hearing had at Greensboro, N. C, in Guilford county, on the 8th day of March, 1937, before Hon. J. Dewey Dorsett, commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission; that evidence was taken at said hearing.Upon the record, an opinion by said commissioner was entered containing the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and award rendered in favor of plaintiffs.

The evidence in part: Gaither Doggett was an employee of the defendantSouth Atlantic Warehouse Company, as truck driver, lifting cotton or anything.He had been in the employ some 10 years.He weighed 215 pounds, fine physical appearance, and had never lost any time in performing his work.He was injured on September 17, 1936, about 7:30 p. m., while at work, slipped and fell some 5 or 6 feet from a platform and broke his leg.He lay where he fell, exposed to the weather about half an hour and was carried into the office and stayed there about 2 hours, an hour waiting on the doctor, who gave him first aid, before he received medical treatment.The weather was cool and it was cold enough to wear a topcoat, or overcoat.His wife testified that they had been married 18 years and had three children and he had never been sick and never lost a day from work in the 18 years.The injury occurred on September 17, and he died on November 26, 1936.

Dr. P. A. Shelburne testified, in part, that after giving him treatment he went home and came to his office probably once a week.One of his family said he was not getting along so well and in consequence he saw him and sent him to the hospital.Dr. Shelburne further testified that in his opinion the "accident and the exposure probably shortened the man's life, " that the "injury accelerated his death."Dr. W. W. Harvey, who stated that he had studied acute nephritis extensively, declared that the "accident (was a) factor" operating as the cause of death, and that considering the accident and the exposure as the cause of the fatal acute nephritis was "a very reasonable explanation."Dr. J. F. Register stated that exposure would be a definite predisposing factor in causing acute nephritis.Dr. Fred M. Patterson gave evidence to the effect that "the exposure and the trauma could be disposing causes" to acute nephritis.

Application for review by the full commission was given by the defendants in apt time.Said review was held before the full commission on the 18th day of June, 1937, at Raleigh, N. C.Thereafter an award by the full commission was entered in favor of plaintiffs.Notice of the award was given to all parties, and the award, together with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the full commission, were duly filed.Thereafter notice of appeal to the superior court for Guilford county was given by defendants to plaintiffs, through their counsel, and to the North Carolina Industrial Commission.The record in this action was certified by the secretary of the North Carolina Industrial Commission to the superior court of Guilford county, where it was docketed and heard before the presiding judge at the September 20th civil term, 1937, upon the record.The judge of the superior court entered a judgment finding no error in the award of the Industrial Commission and affirming the award.Defendants excepted, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Sapp & Sapp, of Greensboro, for appellants.

Brooks, McLendon & Holderness, of Greensboro, for appellees.

CLARKSON, Justice.

The defendants admit: "That on and prior to September 17, 1936, Gaither Doggett was an employee of the South Atlantic Warehouse Corporation; that on that date, the employer had more than five employees and that the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, was the carrier, and admit a weekly wage of $12.50."

The only question involved on this appeal is: Is there competent evidence to

[212 N.C. 113]

support the Industrial Commission's finding of fact that the disease from which the deceased died resulted naturally and unavoidably from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment?We think so.

N. C. Code 1935(Michie), § 8081 (i) subd. (f), is as follows: "'Injury and personal injury' shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except where it results naturally and unavoidably from the accident."

Section 8081 (i) subd. (j): "The term 'death' as a basis for a right to compensation means only death resulting from an injury."

[1, 21 In Johnson v. Hosiery Co., 199 N.C. 38, 40, 153 S.E. 591, 593, it is said: "It is further provided in section 60 that the award of the Commission 'shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.'However, errors of law are reviewable.It is generally held by the courts that the various compensation acts of the union should be liberally construed to the end that the benefits thereof should not be denied upon technical, narrow, and strict interpretation."Rice v. Panel Co., 199 N.C. 154, 157, 154 S.E. 69: Southern v. Cotton Mills Co, 200 N.C. 165, 169, 156 S.E. 861;Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500, 504, 163 S.E. 569.The evidence which makes for plaintiff's claim, or tends to support his cause of action, is to be taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and he is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.Southern v. Cotton Mills, Co, supra;Hildebrand v. Furniture Co, 212 N. C. 100, 193 S.E. 294.

"The definition of injury given in Sec. 2(f), also provides that 'it shall not include a disease in any form, except where it results naturally and unavoidably from the. accident.'In applying this (Thompson v. Williams, 1 N.C. Industrial Commission 124, approved in [Williams v. Thompson] 200 [N.C] 463 ) * * * the Commission evinced a willingness to construe definitions liberally.Plaintiff, a truck driver, sustained an injury to his eye while cleaning a carbura-tor.The injury irritated his eye and resulted in ulcer.Seven days after the accident the plaintiff was treated by a Doctor, who gave the plaintiff some lotion to use.He visited the Doctor three times.Then gonorrhea opthalmia showed up, which was on the thirteenth day after the accident.As a result of the infection the plaintiff lost one eye and suffered a...