Franse v. Knox Porcelain Corporation

• Decision Date: 18 January 1937
• Citation: 100 S.W.2d 647
• Parties: FRANSE v. KNOX PORCELAIN CORPORATION.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 647

100 S.W.2d 647

FRANSE v. KNOX PORCELAIN CORPORATION.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 18, 1937.

Error to Circuit Court, Knox County; L. H. Carlock, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mack H. Franse, claimant, opposed by the Knox Porcelain Corporation, employer. To review an order of the circuit court dismissing the suit, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Hal H. Clements, Norman. B. Morrell, and Hal H. Clements, Jr., all of Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.

Green, Webb, Bass & McCampbell, of Knoxville, for defendant in error.

R. A. DAVIS, Special Judge.

The plaintiff seeks an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1932, § 6851 et seq.), for an injury alleged to have been suffered by him growing out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant. The trial court sustained a plea of the statute of limitations of one year and dismissed the suit. The application of the one-year limitation is the only question made upon the record.

The petition was filed January 9, 1936. The petitioner avers that he suffered an accident about the last day of October or the first day of November, 1931; that on said date, while engaged in his duties, a mechanical appliance, known as a "plunger," fell and struck him in the back, knocked him to the ground, and rendered him unconscious; that he was carried into defendant's office, and there administered first aid, after which treatment he felt better and stayed at his work for the remainder of the day, was able to go to work the next day, and has continued to work for the defendant from time to time; that his back would pain him at times and cause him trouble, but the pain would disappear, and would not interfere with his labor; that in March, 1935, he consulted a physician, and then found that his spine had suffered an injury; that since the said examination, the severity of the pains in his back have increased; that he has been compelled to wear a steel brace; and that it is but a matter of time until he will be unable to perform manual labor of any kind, by reason of said injury. He further charges that at the time of the accident there was nothing to indicate the nature and extent of his injury.

The petition contains no charge that either the accident or injury were concealed from him by the defendant, nor is it charged that the defendant knew or could have known of the extent of his injury, or of the fact that, with time, the effects of the injury would grow more severe.

The petitioner charges that he was a minor at the time he was injured, but that he attained his majority on January 13, 1935.

Our Workmen's Compensation Act specifically includes a minor as an employee. Code, § 6852 (b). And it provides that the right to compensation shall be forever barred, unless, within one year after the accident resulting in injury or death, a claim for compensation is filed with the tribunal having jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Section 6874. And it provides that actions or proceedings to recover...