Goslin-Birmingham Mfg. Co. v. Gantt, 6 Div. 642.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1930
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 642.
• Citation: 222 Ala. 321,131 So. 905
• Parties: GOSLIN-BIRMINGHAM MFG. CO. v. GANTT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

131 So. 905

222 Ala. 321

GOSLIN-BIRMINGHAM MFG. CO. v. GANTT.

6 Div. 642.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 20, 1930

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1931.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. G. R. Gantt against the Goslin-Birmingham Manufacturing Company to recover compensation as dependent widow, on account of the death of G. R. Gantt, an employee. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer brings certiorari.

Writ denied, and judgment affirmed.

London Yancey & Brower and Whit Windham, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Fort Beddow & Ray, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN J.

It was shown without dispute that the deceased workman was on June 7, 1929, when he claimed to have received an injury, in the employ of the petitioner as a machinist engaged in operating a metal planer, a machine used for planing metal; that on the third day thereafter he gave notice to the superintendent in charge that he had been injured and was unable to work. After leaving his work, he went immediately home, and was under the care of a physician up until his death on August 5, 1929. Among other physicians attending him were the physicians of the insurance carriers for petitioner, who visited and examined the workman at petitioner's request.

The immediate cause of death was septicæmia-blood poisoning-resulting from an infection of the hymalyticus type of streptococcus germs which destroy the red blood corpuscles, producing anemia and lessening the resistance of the system to throw off and overcome an attack of disease.

It is conceded by petitioner that there was some legal evidence going to show that the workman received an injury from accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as the result of a blow on his body in the region of his left breast, causing a hematoma-in the language of one of the medical experts-"that is to say, a pocket of blood in there, which would have been due to either a small or a large blood vessel letting the blood out into the tissues."

No one saw the deceased workman stricken, but immediately after his injury he was discovered in a kneeling position, apparently suffering pain, and was assisted to his feet by a fellow workman.

Taking this as its premise, petitioner's contention is that, the fact of the injury itself resting in inference, another inference cannot be indulged that injury caused or accelerated the workman's death; that this, would be resting one inference upon another, which is not permissible.

It is well established in the law of...