Houser v. Young
| Decision Date | 28 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 337. |
| Citation | 247 Ala. 562,25 So.2d 421 |
| Parties | HOUSER v. YOUNG. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
Scott & Dawson, of Fort Payne, for appellee.
Compensation is sought under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1940, Tit. 26, § 253 et seq., for injuries suffered by C. H Young, an employee in the sawmill of Claude L. Houser. Upon the conclusion of the evidence the court in awarding compensation found 'as a matter of law, that the said plaintiff employee was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.' The question for decision is whether appellee was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
We will not weigh the evidence and if on any reasonable view of the evidence, the conclusion of the trial court is supported then the finding and judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander 241 Ala. 476, 3 So.2d 46; Malbis Bakery Co. v. Collins, 245 Ala. 84, 15 So.2d 705. But this does not mean that we will not review the legal conclusion of the court drawn from the evidence. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Thomas, 220 Ala. 686, 127 So. 165.
The appellee was employed for the job of what is designated as 'tailing the edger.' The edger is a saw affixed to a table over which pieces of lumber, which have passed through the primary mill, are passed to reduce them to uniform size and to remove the rough edges. It is operated by two men. One man takes the rough pieces of lumber from the primary mill and feeds them to the edger and the other man takes away the finished lumber and the worthless pieces removed therefrom. The former is called the 'feeder' and the latter is the 'tailer.'
Attached to the table is a moving chain or belt which when in operation carries away the sawdust. This chain or belt in the present case had come off the wheel or sprocket which kept it moving. The edger operated in connection with the primary mill and if the edger had to stop, the primary mill would also stop. The chain or belt had to be kept in operation for if it stayed out of operation the edger would become clogged with sawdust and cease to operate.
A man named Hicks was employed by appellant as 'the feeder', and it was his business to keep the edger in operation. Both he and appellee were trying to get the chain or belt back on the sprocket when Hicks threw it up and it caught appellee's glove. This carried appellee's hand into the edger saw and cut off all the fingers on one hand except the thumb. At the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce
... ... His work hours were from 6:00 ... P. M. to 6:00 A. M. His immediate superior was J. B. Thompson ... who had a son, a very young boy, known affectionately by ... Bruce and most all the officials and employees as ... 'Sonny.' Sonny frequently visited the Plant with the ... Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 207 Ala. 219, ... 92 So. 458. For later cases see Houser v. Young, 247 ... Ala. 562, 25 So.2d 421; Malbis Bakery Co., Inc., v ... Collins, 245 Ala. 84, 15 So.2d 705 ... Petitioner, ... ...
-
Regional Agr. Credit Corp. of Washington, D.C. v. Hendley
... ... In those cases the court was giving a ... liberal construction to a statute in order to advance its ... beneficent objects. Houser v. Young, 247 Ala. 562, ... 25 So.2d 421; Ex parte Terry et al., 211 Ala. 418, 100 So ... 768. The last cited case indicates that there is a ... ...
-
Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc.
...not be disturbed. Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458 [ (1922) ]. For later cases see Houser v. Young, 247 Ala. 562, 25 So.2d 421 [ (1946) ]; Malbis Bakery Co., Inc. v. Collins, 245 Ala. 84, 15 So.2d 705 [ (1943) Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, 249 Ala. 675......
-
Graves v. Builders Steel Supply, 75690
...49, 51, 129 S.E.2d 78, supra; Employers Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Wright, 108 Ga.App. 380, 382, 133 S.E.2d 39. See also Houser v. Young, 247 Ala. 562, 25 So.2d 421 (1946). To hold otherwise is simply unreasonable. "[I]t would be contrary not only to human nature but to the employer's best interes......