Hornbrook-Price Co. v. Stewart

• Citation: 66 Ind.App. 400,118 N.E. 315
• Decision Date: 11 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 10046.,10046.
• Parties: HORNBROOK-PRICE CO. v. STEWART.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

66 Ind.App. 400

118 N.E. 315

HORNBROOK-PRICE CO.

v.STEWART.

No. 10046.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Jan. 11, 1918.

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by John M. Stewart to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the Hornbrook-Price Company, employer. Compensation was awarded, and the employer appeals. Affirmed.Henley & Joseph, of Indianapolis, for appellant. Frank B. Ross, of Indianapolis, for appellee.

DAUSMAN, J.

In June, 1916, appellee was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, a workman in appellant's factory. In the latter part of said month-the precise day appellee is unable to state-he was engaged in cutting heavy sheet steel with hand shears. The work required severe physical exertion. In order to feed the steel into the shears while cutting he was required to press his abdomen against it with great force. While thus pressing the weight of his body against the metal and pulling down on the handle or lever of the shears, being in a condition of intense muscular strain, he “felt something give way,” causing a peculiar sensation in the lower part of his abdomen. He suffered so much pain that he was unable to go on with the work. His helper then took up the work and finished that job for him, Stewart lending such assistance as he was able. The remainder of the evening he did nothing. After that he was given lighter work. For the next day or two he suffered so much that he decided to consult a doctor. The doctor discovered a “right hernia,” and procured for him a truss which he has worn continuously since. He continued to work for appellant until some time in January, 1917, when he quit because his rupture had gradually grown worse until he was disabled for manual labor.

Within five or ten minutes after the accident Stewart told his foreman about it, and the same evening or the next morning he informed the factory superintendent. He did not ask his employer to pay for the truss or for the medical services. He knew nothing of the Workmen's Compensation Act-never heard of it until about two weeks after he quit work. On the 19th day of March, 1917, Stewart filed his application for an award of compensation. On the 11th day of June, 1917, the board made a finding of facts and an award. Among other things the board found:

“That the defendant's foreman, under whom the plaintiff was working, and the defendant's superintendent both had knowledge of the plaintiff's accident and injury within 24 hours after the occurrence.”

[1] Counsel for appellant inform this court that:

“There is but one main question in this case, and that is whether or not the Hornbrook-Price Company had knowledge of the accident as was intended by the Legislature so as to excuse the giving of notice.”

Their contention is that sections 22 and 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act should be construed together and in such manner as to make that part of section 22 which refers to knowledge of the injury read as follows:

“Unless it can be shown that the employer, his agent or representative upon whom a summons in civil action may be served under the laws of the state, had knowledge of the injury.”

We cannot sustain counsel's contention. The knowledge of the foreman under whose direct and immediate supervision appellee...