Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1924
• Docket Number: No. 2794.,2794.
• Parties: GONZALESv.CHINO COPPER CO.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

29 N.M. 228

222 P. 903

GONZALES

v.CHINO COPPER CO.

No. 2794.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 12, 1924.

Syllabus by the Court.

The theory upon which the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the several states have been adopted was to substitute a more humanitarian and economical system of compensation for injured workmen or their dependents in case of death; to provide a speedy and inexpensive method by which such compensation might be made, which is more in harmony with modern methods of industry than the common-law liability for torts, which usually involved long, tedious, and expensive litigation. In addition, it was thought the industry to which the employee contributed his labor should bear the expense of such economic burdens which become a legitimate part of the commercial life and is borne by the consuming public because the cost thereof is added to the cost of the article, and, in the final analysis, is borne by the community at large.

For such reasons a liberal construction in favor of a claimant under the terms of such act should be favored, as the theory of the legislation is compensation, not the lack of it.

“Dependency,” under the terms of such act, does not necessarily depend upon whether or not a given claimant could support himself without the earnings of the deceased, or whether he could have so reduced his living expenses that he could have been supported independent of such earnings; but it depends upon whether or not the deceased had actually contributed to the support of such claimant, and whether or not he relied upon the same for his livelihood.

In the absence of a statute declaring a certain state of relation to conclusively establish dependency, whether or not a given claimant is a dependent is a question of fact.

Findings of the trial court that a given claimant was dependent upon the deceased, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.

The father and mother of an unmarried son, without children, are dependent upon him where the father is an able-bodied man, 42 years old, physically able to work and earn a living for himself and wife, who has been employed for a certain company for more than 10 years, and who is discharged from such employment about two months prior to the death of the son, due to the curtailment in the operations of such company, with the promise that as soon as enlarged operations are resumed he will be re-employed, who is unable to secure employment where he resides, and has no money with which to go elsewhere in search of employment, and, under such circumstances, the son furnished the sole support of said parents upon which they relied from the time of such discharge until the death of the deceased.

Appeal from District Court, Grant County; Ryan, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Miguel Gonzales for the death of his son, opposed by the Chino Copper Company, employer. From a judgment for claimant, the employer appeals. Affirmed.

Findings of the trial court that a given claimant was dependent upon the deceased, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Percy Wilson, of Silver City, for appellant.

N. D. Meyer, of El Paso, Tex., for appellee.

BRATTON, J.

This is a case arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1917, c. 83). It was originally brought upon behalf of the father, mother, and sister of the deceased, all of whom claimed to be his dependents, but during the trial if was abandoned as to the sister, and proceeded as to the father and mother.

Miguel Gonzales, Jr., was accidentally killed at Hurley, N. M., on March 14, 1921, in the course of his employment as a common laborer for the Chino Copper Company. At that time he was a youth between 16 and 17 years of age. He was unmarried, and had no children, and resided in the home with his surviving parents and sister. At the time of the death of the deceased his father was an able-bodied man 42 years of age, physically able to work and earn a livelihood for himself and wife. The mother of the deceased was then 36 years of age, and their only other child was a daughter, Teresa Gonzales. For more than 10 years prior to the death of the deceased his father had been employed by the Chino Copper Company, earning a regular wage as a common laborer. During January, 1921, the father was discharged from such employment due to curtailment in the operations of said company, and from that time until the death of the deceased the said father had not been employed, and had no income whatsoever. He made only one effort to obtain employment, and that was without success. The undisputed evidence in the record shows there was no other place near Hurley where employment could be had, and the father had no money with which to leave and go elsewhere in search of employment. Due to these conditions, both parents were entirely supported by the wages earned by the deceased from the time the father was so discharged until the decedent's death; the undisputed facts being that the mother took his pay checks as they were issued, and with the proceeds paid the household expenses, thereby maintaining the home of which the deceased was a member.

In due time this proceeding was instituted in compliance with the provisions of chapter 83, Laws of 1917, and chapter 44, Laws of 1919 (chapter 184, Laws of 1921, not being in force at the time of the accident and death of the deceased), in which all facts leading up to and surrounding the decedent's death were fully set forth, plus the further fact that the claimants were actual dependents upon him at the time of his death. By answer the appellant admitted all the facts except the dependency of the appellees, which they specifically denied.

A trial before the court resulted in special findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which judgment was rendered in favor of the claimants, from which this appeal was seasonably perfected.

[1] 1. It may well be kept in mind that the theory upon which the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the several states were adopted was to substitute a more humanitarian and economical system of compensation for injured workmen or their dependents in case of their death; to provide a speedy and inexpensive method by which such compensation might be made to such employees or those dependent upon them which is more in harmony with modern methods of industry than the common-law liability for torts, which usually involved long, tedious, and expensive litigation, and often produced ill feeling between employer and employee. In addition, it was designed to substitute a more uniform scale of compensation in cases of accidental injury or death than the ordinary varying and widely divergent estimates of juries, and to avoid the application of certain well-established rules of law which oftentimes worked seeming harsh results, the most common of which was that of contributory negligence. If the employee knew of the danger of the employment he was held to have assumed the consequential results therefrom, and to be responsible for any calamity arising from such conditions. And we think we are well within the realm of human experience when we say that a workman, being dependent upon the fruits of his labor to support himself and those dependent upon him, was often tempted to and did incur risks to which, as a matter of humanity he should not be exposed. But, viewing the question from a purely legal standpoint, if he took and continued in such employment with such knowledge, he must trust to himself to keep clear from injury, and his failure to do so precluded any recovery for resulting death or injuries. Unfortunately, workmen would assume such employment with such knowledge of danger, and where injured or killed there existed no legal right to recover damages therefor, with the result that they or their dependents were frequently charitable charges upon the community. To obviate these conditions it was thought the industry to which the employees contributed their labor should bear the expense of all such economic burdens which become a legitimate part of the commercial life as the “overhead” cost. They might be catalogued with breakage and wear and tear of machinery and equipment, all of which are, in the final analysis, borne by the community, and such compensation may safely be said to be a charge upon the community rather than the industry, because the expense thereof is always included in the sale price of the commodity, and hence is paid for by the consuming public. It is merely an element in the cost of production added to the cost of the article and borne by the community in general.

[2] With these elevating and progressive considerations which prompted the passage of this class of legislation in mind, we think a liberal construction in favor of a claimant under its terms should be favored, as the theory of the legislation is compensation, not the denial of it. Such a claimant no longer has the common-law right to sue in tort to recover damages for wrongful injury or death, as that right is abrogated by such statutes, and he is relegated to the terms of the Compensation Act for all remuneration ever obtainable for the wrongful or negligent death of the “breadwinner.”

2. The serious question presented by the parties is whether or not, under the facts, the claimants were dependents of the...