Hawkins v. Safety Casualty Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 4455.,4455. |
| Citation | 204 S.W.2d 866 |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. SAFETY CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. S. Nichols, Judge.
Suit by William M. Hawkins, employee of the Magnolia Petroleum Company, against Safety Casualty Company to set aside an adverse award of the Industrial Accident Board. From an adverse judgment upon an instructed verdict, the employee appeals.
Affirmed.
Lamar Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
Jack Vickery, of Beaumont, for appellee.
This is a workman's compensation case, in which judgment was rendered for the insurer, Safety Casualty Company, appellee, upon an instructed verdict.
William M. Hawkins, appellant, testified that while he was working for the Magnolia Petroleum Company at Beaumont on July 3, 1945, he was severely injured, was treated by the company doctor and taped up; that some time later, he was not sure how long afterward, he returned to work and his fellow workers did the heavy part of his work so that he did only light work and was thus able to stay on the job; that the company doctor told him his injuries were not serious and he was hoping they were not serious; that not until March 19, 1946, about two months and two weeks after his six-months period for filing a claim for compensation had expired, did he find out that his injury was going to be serious; about a week thereafter he went to his attorney, who immediately filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board for him. From his testimony and that of one of his witnesses it was established that because of this injury he lost a great deal of time from his work at the Magnolia. In his own words, he "missed plenty days." He further testified that he was off from work three weeks at a time one time; that between July 3, 1945 and March 8, 1946, he was off around 90 days or more. He had been laid off by his employer and was not working for it at the time when he testified that he discovered his injury was going to be serious. He was at that time engaged in raking trash in a lady's yard.
The appellant in various ways assails the action of the trial court in taking the case from the jury and instructing a verdict in favor of the insurance carrier. The motion for such instructed verdict was grounded on the failure of the claimant to establish by the evidence good cause for not filing his claim for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarrant Cnty. Democratic Party v. Steen
...good cause. We have found no case that addresses this specific statute, but we may look to other decisions for guidance. Here, Hawkins v. Safety Casualty Co. provides a helpful analog. See Hawkins v. Safety Cas. Co., 146 Tex. 381, 384, 207 S.W.2d 370, 372 (1948) (defining good cause in a wo......
-
Hawkins v. Safety Casualty Co.
...required by Sec. 4a of Art. 8307, V.A.C.S. The judgment of the trial court denying recovery was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 204 S.W.2d 866. The claimant, William M. Hawkins, who is the petitioner, sustained an accidental injury on July 3, 1945, while in the course of his employm......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. King
...issues, they become conclusive against the claimant only when reasonable minds could reach no other conclusion. Hawkins v. Safety Cas. Co., 146 Tex. 381, 207 S.W.2d 370. We think reasonable minds can differ as to whether plaintiff and his attorney had good cause for the delay in filing from......