Hopson v. Hungerford Coal Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1948
• Docket Number: Record No. 3323.
• Citation: 187 Va. 299
• Parties: EVA HARRIS HOPSON v. HUNGERFORD COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 299

187 Va. 299

EVA HARRIS HOPSON v. HUNGERFORD COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

Record No. 3323.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

March 1, 1948.

Present, Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Staples, JJ.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Accident Arising out of and in Course of Employment — Sufficiency of Presumptive Evidence. — In workmen's compensation cases, where liability is imposed on the employer on presumptive evidence to the effect that the death arose out of the employment, there must be an absence of contrary or conflicting evidence on the point and the circumstances which form the basis of the presumption must be of sufficient strength from which the only rational inference to be drawn is that death arose out of and in the course of the employment.

2. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — "Accident" — Liberal Construction. — Courts are liberal in construing the word "accident," as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act.

3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Injuries Covered. — That which will sustain a recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Act is an injury which can be traced to the employment as a cause.

4. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — "Accident — Murder. — Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even murder may be an accident.

5. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Accident Arising out of and in Course of Employment — Burden of Proof in Case of Assault. — Simply because an employee sustains injury from an assault made upon him by a third party does not entitle him to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; he must go further and prove that the assault was directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment; that is, that it arose out of as well as in the course of his employment.

6. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Burden of Proof — Evidence Supporting Either of Two Theories as to Cause of Injury. — When damages are claimed in workmen's compensation cases for injuries which may have resulted from one of two causes, for one of which the employer is responsible and for the other of which it is not responsible, claimant must fail if his evidence does not show that the damage was produced by the former cause. And he must also fail if it is just as probable that the damages were caused by the one as by the other, since claimant is bound to make out his case by the preponderance of evidence.

7. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Burden of Proof — Causal Connection between Employment and Injury. — In workmen's compensation cases, the plaintiff must prove his case, and as an essential part of it he must prove causal connection between the employment and the injury, which proof must go beyond conjecture.

8. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Review — Conclusiveness of Finding that Death Did Not Arise out of Employment — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission, an employee of defendant was found murdered at a farm owned by the employer and to which he had been instructed to go in the course of his employment. The murderer stole the employer's truck which the employee had driven to the farm but there was no evidence that the theft of the truck was the motive for the killing, and the commission held that there was no sufficient proof of the motive and that to conclude that the death of the employee arose out of his employment would be conjectural.

Held: That this holding, in effect, was a finding of fact by the commission and was binding upon the Supreme Court of Appeals.

9. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Accident Arising out of and in Course of Employment — Determination of Conflicting Inferences Exclusively for Commission. — In workmen's compensation cases, before compensation can be awarded it must be concluded from the facts that the injury or death has been traced to the employment as a cause, and where divergent or conflicting inferences reasonably might be drawn from established facts their determination is exclusively for the fact-finding body.

Appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission.

The opinion states the case.

Walter M. Evans, for the appellant.

John G. May, Jr., and Robert Lewis Young, for the appellees.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner applied to the Industrial Commission of Virginia for compensation for the death of her husband, William L. Hopson, who was an employee of Hungerford Coal Co., Inc., dealers in coal. She and her six children under the age of eighteen years at the time of his death were his dependents.

The Industrial Commission denied compensation on the ground that there was no evidence that the accident causing Hopson's death arose out of his employment.

There is no dispute as to the facts. They are as follows: Hopson had been a faithful employee of the Hungerford Coal Co., Inc., for 24 years and he had no known enemies. He was at the time of his death and had been for several years a truck driver engaged in delivering coal to the customers of his employer. In addition to this, he also worked on a farm in New Kent county which belonged to his employer and which was operated as a part of the business of the coal company and used for the entertainment of the customers of the company. It had proven successful for a number of years in aiding in the retention of old customers and attracting new ones. It was not self-supporting and the expense of maintaining and operating it, including Hopson's salary, was borne by the coal company.

On the morning of October 16, 1946, Hopson was instructed to deliver a load of coal to a customer in Richmond and after the delivery to proceed with the coal truck to the farm where he was directed to cut some standing corn to be used in feeding the livestock. He was directed to return to Richmond that afternoon. The truck was a red, dump body truck, with the name, "Hungerford" in large letters on each side of the body, and the words "Hungerford Coal Co., Inc." on the rear.

Hopson delivered the load of coal as directed and proceeded to the farm but failed to return to Richmond in the afternoon. He was never seen alive after the morning of October 16. Mr. Hungerford, suspecting foul play, reported to the police the absence of Hopson. On October 22 he went to the farm himself where he found the body of Hopson considerably decomposed. It was lying in a corn field, partly covered with corn stalks, and some 78 feet from the road leading to the farm house. Hopson had been shot several times in the head with a 20-gauge shotgun at close range. Several pieces of shotgun wadding from the shells were found within a few feet of his body. The truck had been moved. Hopson had evidently commenced the performance of his assigned duties when he was killed, because some of the corn had actually been cut. He had no money on his person but he did have a silver watch and chain and a card case containing his chauffeur's license. It was generally known that he did not carry substantial funds or valuables on his person. So far as is known, no one other than the assailant and Hopson was on the farm at the time of the murder.

It is stipulated that Hopson was killed with a shotgun on October 16, 1946, during his regular working hours, by one Thomas Edward Barker, who had been committed to the Central State Hospital for the Negro insane at Petersburg on August 26, 1946, but had escaped from that institution on October 13, 1946.

Barker was not available as a witness for the reason that he was insane. Dr. Allison of the Central State Hospital was of the opinion that he was feeble minded at the time he was committed in August, 1946, and that he possessed the mentality of a 13-year-old boy. He was familiar with the location of the Hungerford farm and of that general section of New Kent county, having been born and reared in that neighborhood. He and Hopson were not acquainted.

On October 15, Barker appeared at the home of his brother-in-law, Clifford Otey, who lived near the Hungerford farm. He spent the night at Otey's hom and left the next morning at 7:30, after having stolen Otey's 20-gauge shotgun, with which the murder was committed, and a box and a half of shotgun shells. Prior to the murder on October 16, Barker attempted to obtain money from persons in and around Black's store at Quinton, a mile from the Hungerford farm. He was seen by several persons on that morning, evidently after the murder, driving the Hungerford truck rapidly away from the farm. One James Ghee, between 12 noon and 2 p.m. on October 16, while walking along the highway, met Barker driving the truck about 2 1/2 miles from the Hopewell ferry. Barker offered to sell Ghee the shotgun and Ghee finally bought it for $2. A little later Barker was seen at the Hopewell ferry and still later voluntarily returned to the hospital at Petersburg around six o'clock in the evening. Before boarding the ferry he had abandoned the truck. It is estimated that the murder was committed probably between 11 a.m. and 12 noon on October 16.

Barker again escaped from the hospital on the night of October 22 and returned to this same nighborhood. A posse was formed on the night of October 24 and he was captured about 10 p.m. that night. A button was missing from his coat and a button which was found at the scene of the crime was identified as corresponding to the buttons on the coat.

The missing truck was located on October 27 secreted in some woods near the Hopewell ferry. The record fails to show that Barker made any effort to dispose of the truck. He was indicted for murder on November 4, 1946, but he has not been tried on account of his mental condition. He was found insane by the authorities at the State Hospital on March 26, 1947.

The Industrial Commission held that from the established facts there could be no doubt but that Hopson was killed as the result of an accident happening in the course of his employment. When he was shot he was doing that which he was employed to do and doing it under instructions from his superior.

The serious and...