Guzman v. Maryland Casualty Co., 6898.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1937
• Docket Number: No. 6898.,6898.
• Parties: GUZMAN v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

107 S.W.2d 356

GUZMAN v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

No. 6898.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 14, 1937.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Adelina Guzman against the Maryland Casualty Company, insurance carrier, to set aside an award by the Industrial Accident Board under the Workmen's Compensation Act. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals [79 S.W.(2d) 330], reversing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff brings error.

Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of the trial court affirmed.

Jones & Kirkham and John J. Pichinson, all of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.

R. H. Mercer, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SHARP, Justice.

This case arose under the Workmen's Compensation Law (article 8306 et seq., Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.). Arturo Guzman was an employee of the Corpus Christi Warehouse & Storage Company, and died while in the course of his employment. The Maryland Casualty Company was the insurer. Adelina Guzman, as the common-law wife of Arturo Guzman, brought this action to recover compensation for the death of Arturo Guzman. She recovered judgment for the sum of $2,144.26, with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum. The Maryland Casualty Company appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, and the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded. 79 S.W.(2d) 330, 331. We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a more detailed statement of the facts involved. A writ of error was granted.

Plaintiff in error, on the one hand, contends that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that there was no finding by the jury that the employee's death was caused by accidental injury incurred in the course of his employment, because under the issues submitted to the jury such finding was clearly made by the jury. Defendant in error, on the other hand, contends that plaintiff in error was not entitled to recover, in the absence of any jury finding, or request therefor by plaintiff in error, that Arturo Guzman's death was caused by accidental injury occurring in the course of his employment.

The case was submitted to the jury on special issues. Among others, the following three special issues were submitted to the jury:

Special Issue No. 5: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Arturo Guzman, on or about April 6th, 1933, received an injury in the course of his employment?" Answer: "Yes."

Special Issue No. 9: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the death of Arturo Guzman was due to a cause other than an injury sustained by him while engaged in the performance of his duties for the Corpus Christi Warehouse & Storage Company?" Answer: "No."

Special Issue No. 10: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the death of Arturo Guzman was due to a heart disease of long duration?" Answer: "No."

At the request of counsel for defendant in error the court submitted to the jury special issues Nos. 9 and 10, above described. In addition, the following special issues were also requested by counsel for defendant in error:

Special Issue No. 7: "Do you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the sole cause of Arturo Guzman's death was due to a heart disease? Answer `Yes' or `No.'"

Special Issue No. 2: "Do you find from the...