Home Ice Co. v. Franzini
Decision Date | 28 November 1930 |
Citation | 32 S.W.2d 1032,161 Tenn. 395 |
Parties | HOME ICE CO. v. FRANZINI. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Oscar Yarnell, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Cenora Franzini claimant, for death of her husband, Jack Franzini, employee opposed by the Home Ice Company, employer. From an award in favor of claimant, employer appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
T. Pope Shepherd and J. Clifford Curry, both of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
Chas S. Coffey, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by an employer from an award made in a workmen's compensation case in favor of the widow and children of a deceased employee.
The Home Ice Company, the employer, operated an ice plant in Chattanooga. The deceased employee, Jack Franzini, had been in its service for several years at the time of his death. He worked at night. It was his duty to sell ice over the platform to such people as wanted it and came to the plant at night. He was further expected to wash the wagons, look after the work stock, and to act as a sort of night watchman of the entire premises.
In the rear of the Home Ice Company's main building was a yard and on this yard a stable for the horses and mules and a blacksmith shop were located. The wagons were also parked there at night. The machinery in the plant was operated by electricity, and there was a transformer tower likewise in the yard.
Franzini was last seen alive by the night engineer at the plant, about midnight. The engineer testified that Franzini came through the engine room and passed out into the back yard saying he was going to look after his brother-in-law who, it later appeared, was sleeping out there. The engineer testified that Franzini was gone some twenty minutes or more; that he (the engineer) began to wonder what had become of him and went out into the yard to see. He discovered Franzini's body, lying on the ground, at the foot of the transformer tower, apparently dead. The engineer gave the alarm and the superintendent of the plant and a physician came shortly. Franzini's body was very thoroughly examined by these two and by others.
Examination of Franzini's body disclosed that there was a deep burn through a part of his thumb and across the palm of his right hand. The physician described the flesh here as charred. On the left forearm there was a sort of blister, a burn described as a flash burn. There were likewise something like abrasions on this arm, which may have come from the flash burn or may have been scratches.
Everyone agrees that Franzini met his death by an electric shock, the current passing into his body through the right hand and passing out through the left forearm. The nature of the burn on his right hand is indicated by all the proof to have come from a current of high voltage. One of the witnesses noticed white spots in this burn, which he said were indicative of such a current. While the doctor did not notice the white spots in the burn, his testimony indicates that the burn was deep, the flesh charred, and the burn of such a nature as to be caused by a powerful current.
Just how Franzini came in contact with the current of electricity that caused his death is not known. The defense to the claim before us is that his death was not occasioned by an injury arising out of his employment.
Franzini's duties took him all over the premises, as has been seen. It was expected that he should go out into this back yard during the night to look after the stock, to watch after the premises, and on occasions to wash the wagons, although on the night he was killed the washing apparatus was out of commission.
It is obvious that Franzini received the injury that caused his death after he passed through the engine room into the back yard. He was all right as he went out into the yard, some twenty minutes before the engineer found his body.
Shortly after the body was found the electric power company was notified of the accident and sent two men to look over the premises. The superintendent and others joined in this examination of the surroundings. No loose or hanging wire, no charged metal, nor any agency that could have conveyed this electric...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milstead v. Kaylor
... ... as to the manner of his death, an inference may arise of an ... accident springing out of and in the course of his ... employment.' Home Ice Co. v. Franzini, 161 Tenn ... 395, 32 S.W.2d 1032, 1033. In other words a prima-facie case ... for the claimant is thus supported. When such a ... ...
-
Smith v. Fentress Coal & Coke Co.
...a bare conjecture. We have steadfastly held to this rule and no exception can be made in the instant case. The rule announced in Home Ice Co. v. Franzini, supra, other cases cited, would be controlling in determining whether the death of this employee was accidental within the meaning of th......
-
Farris v. Yellow Cab Co.
...Chemical Co. v. Smith, 145 Tenn. 532, 533, 238 S.W. 97; and Tennessee Eastman Corp. v. Russell, 150 Tenn. 331, 265 S.W. 540; and Home Ice Co. v. Franzini, supra. Contention is made on the brief that these cases support view that 'Where an employee is found at his post of labor during the ti......
-
Patton v. L.O. Brayton & Co.
... ... contend that there is no material evidence to support this ... The ... defendant, L. O. Brayton & Company, maintained its home ... office at Dyersburg, and also maintained a repair shop there ... The deceased resided at Dyersburg and had been working for ... Brayton & ... employment. Shockley v. Morristown Produce & Ice ... Co., 158 Tenn. 148, 11 S.W.2d 900; Home Ice Co. v ... Franzini, 161 Tenn. 395, 32 S.W.2d 1032 ... There ... is no competent proof in the record to show that Patton was ... going to Dyersburg ... ...