Elrod v. Union Bleachery

• Decision Date: 09 May 1944
• Docket Number: 15648.
• Parties: ELROD v. UNION BLEACHERY et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E.2d 73

204 S.C. 481

ELROD v. UNION BLEACHERY et al.

No. 15648.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 9, 1944

Stephen Nettles, of Greenville, for appellants.

Price & Poag and J. LaRue Hinson, all of Greenville, for respondents.

TAYLOR Justice.

The respondents in this case are the widow and dependent child of Harry Elrod who died as a result of a blow on the head at the hands of one Alvin Duncan while both Elrod and Duncan were employed and at work on the premises of the Union Bleachery of Greenville, S. C. A claim was filed shortly after his death in behalf of the dependents with the South Carolina Industrial Commission which alleged that the death of Elrod was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The hearing commissioner filed his opinion July 6, 1943 awarding the claimants $13.12 per week for a period of 350 weeks and $200 for funeral expenses, all medical, doctors and hospital bills, and the costs of this action against the Union Bleachery and its insurance carrier American Mutual Liability Insurance Company. Upon review by the full commission the opinion and award of the hearing commissioner was adopted as that of the Commission. Appellants then appealed to the Circuit Court from the opinion and award of the full commission.

The order of the Circuit Court affirming the findings of the Commission reads as follows:

"This matter comes before me on appeal. I have carefully studied the record and I think there is some evidence to sustain the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission.

Their findings being conclusive, the appeal is dismissed and all exceptions are overruled."

From this order defendants appeal to this Court upon the following exceptions:

1. The injury and death of Elrod was not due to an accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

2. The injury and death of Elrod did not arise out of his employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

3. The only reasonable and proper conclusion from the evidence is that Duncan fatally assaulted Elrod because he had insulted his (Duncan's) wife, and that this misconduct on Elrod's part brought about his death rather than any failure of duty on the part of the employer or any quarrel connected with the employer's business.

4. There is no evidence in the record on which an award for the claimants could properly be based.

The second exception to the effect that the injury and death of Elrod did not arise out of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1942, § 7035-1 et seq., will be considered first in that this seems to be the paramount question in the instant case.

It is now well-established law in this State that where claim is made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Industrial Commission is the fact-finding body and this Court has a right to review the testimony for the purpose only of ascertaining whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission. If there is, then such findings are binding upon the Common Pleas and Supreme Courts of this State. Anderson et al. v. Campbell Tile Co. et al., 202 S.C. 54, 24 S.E.2d 104.

Elrod and one "Woody" went to a cafe in the City of Greenville, S. C., late Saturday night, March 15, 1942. Upon entering the cafe "Woody," knowing Mrs. Roberts, spoke to her and introductions followed. Then Elrod asked Mrs. Duncan to go to ride with him and when she refused, insisted, asking that she "step out" with him at another time. Upon her return home she told her husband. At about 5 o'clock Sunday morning, March 16, 1942, while Elrod and Duncan were at work and while Elrod was in a stooped position helping push a heavy roller from one part of the plant to another he was struck by Duncan over the back of the head with a club, from which blow he shortly died.

The appellants contend that the injury and death of Elrod arose out of his advances to Mrs. Duncan and her subsequent complaint to her husband and therefore did not arise out of the employment. Respondents contend first that Elrod was a most industrious and energetic employee always anxious to improve himself while Duncan was just another employee, one who had already advanced as far as possible for one of his qualifications and that because of this Duncan nursed a hatred toward or was jealous of Elrod. There is considerable testimony to the effect that...