Edwards v. State Comp. Com'r, No. 7381.

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtWOODS, J
Citation165 S.E. 669
PartiesEDWARDS. v. STATE COMPENSATION COM'R et al.
Docket NumberNo. 7381.
Decision Date13 September 1932

165 S.E. 669

EDWARDS.
v.
STATE COMPENSATION COM'R et al.

No. 7381.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sept. 13, 1932.


Syllabus by the Court.

"A finding of fact by the State Compensation Commissioner based on substantial evidence, not at variance with a clear preponderance of the whole evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal." Lacy v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 555, 146 S. E. 375.

Proceedings by Hosea Edwards, claimant, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. From a ruling of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

England & Ritchie, of Charleston, for appellant.

H. B. Lee, Atty. Gen., R. Dennis Steed, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

WOODS, J.

Claimant, who lost the sight of both eyes while working in a coal mine, was refused compensation on the ground that the injury was due to his own willful misconduct.

According to his testimony, claimant, on October 21, 1931, was preparing to shoot down coal, and while tamping the powder back in the hole, it exploded in his face. The employer, however, after investigation, advanced the theory that the accident was due to the use of a short fuse, basing the same upon the condition of the working place after the accident and the discovery of three pieces of fuse in the vicinity thereof. It appears from the evidence that an 8-inch piece of fuse was found in a pair of claimant's trousers, which he, upon going to work, had placed with his dinner pail, powder bag, etc., some 50 feet from the face of the coal and around the corner from where he was working; a coil of fuse approximately 5 feet in length, under a rock near the dinner pail; and a 6-ineh piece of burnt fuse, about 15 feet away from the place of the shot and in the string of slack thrown out by the explosion. While claimant admitted having the first two pieces of fuse in his possession, he denies knowledge of the third, stating Chat it must have been left there by men shooting slate and rock. He explained that the fuse in his trousers' pocket had been there since the 9th or 10th of the month; that he forgot to return it to the contractor (Hughes) for whom he was working at that time; and that he did not wear the

[165 S.E. 670]

trousers again because of their ragged condition, until the day of the accident, when he put them on because it was "kinda cold." As to the longer piece of fuse, claimant testified that it had been hidden since the 14th, his last shift on company work. It appears...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Geeslin v. Workmen's Compensation Com'r, No. 15287
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 2, 1982
    ...Young v. State Compensation Commissioner, 123 W.Va. 299, 14 S.E.2d 774 (1941); Edwards v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 504, 165 S.E. 669 (1932); Venilli v. State Compensation Commissioner, 107 W.Va. 544, 149 S.E. 612 4 The rule is enunciated in Syllabus Point 8 of Thompson v. ......
  • Carper v. Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, No. 8841.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • January 24, 1939
    ...of his employment, and that has been defined as "a point reasonably proximate to the place of work" (Hager v. Compensation Com'r, supra, 165 S.E. 669), and "reasonable proximity to the factory, mine, shop, quarry or other place of employment" (Taylor v. Compensation Com'r, supra, 178 S.E. 7......
  • Billings v. State Comp. Comm'r, No. 9207.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 30, 1941
    ...162 S.E. 665; Carbon Fuel Co. v. State Compensation Com'r, 112 W.Va. 203, 164 S.E. 27; Edwards v. State Compensation Com'r, 112 W.Va. 504, 165 S.E. 669; Young v. State Compensation Com'r, supra. We think that claimant's conduct in leaving his motor unattended while it was running, though wi......
  • Billings v. State Comp. Comm'r., (No. 9207)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 30, 1941
    ...E. 665; Carbon Fuel Co. v. State Compensation Com'r., 112 W. Va. 203, 164 S. E. 27; Edwards v. State Compensation Com'r., 112 W. Va. 504, 165 S. E. 669; Young v. Compensation Com'r., supra. We think that claimant's conduct in leaving his motor unattended while it was running, though wilful ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Geeslin v. Workmen's Compensation Com'r, No. 15287
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 2, 1982
    ...Young v. State Compensation Commissioner, 123 W.Va. 299, 14 S.E.2d 774 (1941); Edwards v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 504, 165 S.E. 669 (1932); Venilli v. State Compensation Commissioner, 107 W.Va. 544, 149 S.E. 612 4 The rule is enunciated in Syllabus Point 8 of Thompson v. ......
  • Carper v. Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, No. 8841.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • January 24, 1939
    ...of his employment, and that has been defined as "a point reasonably proximate to the place of work" (Hager v. Compensation Com'r, supra, 165 S.E. 669), and "reasonable proximity to the factory, mine, shop, quarry or other place of employment" (Taylor v. Compensation Com'r, supra, 178 S.E. 7......
  • Billings v. State Comp. Comm'r, No. 9207.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 30, 1941
    ...162 S.E. 665; Carbon Fuel Co. v. State Compensation Com'r, 112 W.Va. 203, 164 S.E. 27; Edwards v. State Compensation Com'r, 112 W.Va. 504, 165 S.E. 669; Young v. State Compensation Com'r, supra. We think that claimant's conduct in leaving his motor unattended while it was running, though wi......
  • Billings v. State Comp. Comm'r., (No. 9207)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 30, 1941
    ...E. 665; Carbon Fuel Co. v. State Compensation Com'r., 112 W. Va. 203, 164 S. E. 27; Edwards v. State Compensation Com'r., 112 W. Va. 504, 165 S. E. 669; Young v. Compensation Com'r., supra. We think that claimant's conduct in leaving his motor unattended while it was running, though wilful ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT