Hood v. The American Refrigerator Transit Company

• Decision Date: 10 January 1920
• Docket Number: 22,387
• Citation: 186 P. 977,106 Kan. 76
• Parties: JOHN HOOD, Appellee, v. THE AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

186 P. 977

106 Kan. 76

JOHN HOOD, Appellee, v. THE AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant

No. 22,387

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 10, 1920

Decided January, 1920.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 2; FRANK D HUTCHINGS, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT--Partial Incapacity--Minimum Compensation. In an action by a workman to recover compensation under the Laws of 1911, ch. 218; Laws of 1913, ch. 216, where there was evidence tending to show that as a result of the injury plaintiff was less able to perform his work as a car repairer, and the jury made a finding that he was partially incapacitated, and awarded him the minimum compensation of $ 3 a week for the period which they found his partial incapacity would probably continue, held, the defendant was not entitled to judgment on the special findings, although the findings show that within a few months after plaintiff received his injury he obtained employment elsewhere in the same kind of work, and had been earning almost double the amount of his average earnings at the time of his injury.

W. P. Waggener, and J. M. Challis, both of Atchison, for the appellant.

W. W. McCanles, Charles E. Thompson, and H. F. Gorsuch, all of Kansas City, for the appellee.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

In an action under the workmen's compensation law the plaintiff recovered judgment for $ 480, which included $ 36 for six weeks of total incapacity, and the minimum amount of $ 3 per week for 148 weeks, the period during which the jury found he would be partially incapacitated. At the time he was injured plaintiff was employed as a car repairer working for the defendant in repairing and reconstructing refrigerator cars. His injury was to the left hand, the third finger being broken near the second joint. There was evidence tending to show that as result of the injury the joint became somewhat stiff, so that plaintiff was not able to hold nails in his left hand or to perform his usual and customary work as a carpenter or car repairer. At the time he was injured he was earning $ 16.50 per week.

With their verdict the jury returned answers to a number of special questions. They found that plaintiff was injured on April 26, 1917, and that on June 20, following, he started to work for a railroad company in the capacity of a car repairer, and that since that time he had performed substantially the same kind of work for the railroad company that he was performing for the defendant at the time of his injury, and that his average earnings since June 20, 1917, amount to $ 30 per week.

The defendant's motion for judgment on the special findings, notwithstanding the general verdict, was overruled, and defendant brings the case here for review.

The appeal raises but one question. It is said that the spirit of the workmen's compensation act of 1911, as amended in 1913, compels a judgment in defendant's favor. The contention is, that the compensation acts were passed for the sole purpose of making good the impaired earning power of an injured workman so long as the workman suffers under the disability; that the findings and evidence show a very ordinary and trivial injury, and show further that at the end of eight weeks after the injury plaintiff was a better workman than he had been theretofore, as indicated by his increased earnings. The fact that the plaintiff went to work for an employer with whom he was in no way involved, and against whom he had no claim, it is said, shows that he secured and retained employment on the basis of his own worth and capacity. It is insisted, too, that "the capacity to labor is to be determined by the earnings of the laborer," and that the increased earnings of plaintiff in the identical kind of employment disproved the possibility that he suffered any incapacity.

While our compensation law proceeds upon the theory that usually the capacity of a workman to perform labor bears a close relation to his earnings when employed, we do...