In re Sanderson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1916
• Citation: 224 Mass. 558,113 N.E. 355
• Parties: In re SANDERSON'S CASE. In re GLOBE INDEMNITY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

224 Mass. 558

113 N.E. 355

In re SANDERSON'S CASE.

In re GLOBE INDEMNITY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 30, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Fannie E. Sanderson for compensation for the death of her husband, Willis C. Sanderson, opposed by the Globe Indemnity Company, the insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award sustained by the superior court, and the insurer appeals. Reversed, and decree ordered that dependent is not entitled to compensation.

Frank J. Lawler, of Greenfield, for plaintiff.

Jas. T. Connolly and M. J. Mulkern, both of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the superior court, based on a decision of the Industrial Accident Board ordering the Globe Indemnity Company to pay the sum of $2,025 to Fannie E. Sanderson, widow of Willis C. Sanderson, for his death.

The findings of the Committee of Arbitration in substance were, that Willis C. Sanderson was a general workman, a plumber's assistant, employed by one Black; that on January 22, 1913, at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon he left the shop of his employer in South Deerfield to go to Whately, a distance of about four miles, to do some work at the house of one Fleming, a customer of his employer; that he left the house of Fleming an 5 o'clock that afternoon with a horse and wagon of his employer to return to the shop in South Deerfield; that he was seen by one Connelly as he was driving on the highway leading from Whately to South Deerfield, apparently in a normal condition; ‘that five minutes later Connelly came upon his unconscious body lying in the roadway to the left of the wheel tracks; that his head was pointing south and his feet towards the north; that a blanket was found more nearly in the middle of the roadway, north of his feet; that Connelly saw the horse and wagon some distance away, jogging along up the road; that Connelly called Sanderson by name but obtained no sign of recognition; that he then lifted his head and Sanderson groaned once; that Sanderson was lying on his right side, his right arm underneath him, and he partly rolled over when he groaned; * * * that Sanderson's eyes were partly opened; that he appeared to be unconscious.’

The Arbitration Committee further found that he was taken to the Greenfield Hospital where it was found that there was a cut ‘over the right eye, an inch or an inch and a half in length, extending into the hair on the front of the head, and at its deepest point extending through the scalp to the skull and causing a slight hemorrhage from the periosteum; and there was a contused surface around the cut for about three inches; that there were black and blue marks found on the back of his hand and shoulder; * * * that the autopsy revealed that all the organs in the man's body were in normal and healthy condition; that there was no evidence of a diseased condition of the arteries or the heart; that the brain was examined * * * that it was found that there was a hemorrhage in the lateral ventricles and in the third and fourth ventricles; that it was found that the ventricles and the spinal canal were gorged by the hemorrhage and that the hemorrhage caused death.’ He died about 3 o'clock the next morning.

The committee further found:

‘There was no direct evidence tending to show how or in what manner Sanderson fell from the wagon. There was no positive evidence as to whether the hemorrhage did occur before or after he fell from the wagon, but from the circumstances as disclosed by all the evidence, we find as a fact that Sanderson either fell or was thrown from the wagon, while he was in the employ of said Black, returning from his work with his tools, to the shop of said Black, in South Deerfield, and that the cut and contusion which was found on his head immediately after the fall, and the black and blue spots, found on his shoulder and hand, were made by the fall.’

The committee therefore found upon all the evidence, that Sanderson's death ‘was due to accident, while he was acting for his employer in the course of his employment.’

Upon a claim for review, the Industrial Accident Board affirmed and adopted the finding of the committee and found upon all the evidence as follows:

‘That the employee Willis C. Sanderson received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, by reason of having been thrown from the wagon in which he was seated. The position of his body when found showed that he did not fall inertly from his seat, as would have been the case had he sustained an apoplectic shock preceding and causing the fall. The weight of all the evidence showed that he was thrown by an accident, and not by a stroke of apoplexy or other natural cause; and that he was thrown from the wagon by the sudden moving or starting of the horse, the horse having been found trotting along about three-quarters of a mile away within five minutes from the time the employee had been seen driving along the road; the body was found on the side of the road, beyond the beaten wheel tracks, where he would not naturally be found if he had fallen inertly because of a stroke of apoplexy; his head was pointing in a direction opposite to that in which he was driving. He was unconscious, evidently on the spot on which he struck, on his fall from the wagon. * * * The preponderance of all the medical and circumstantial evidence shows that a trauma preceded and caused the hemorrhage which resulted in the death of the said employee, and the board so finds.’

It is plain that the injury was received while the employee was engaged in the regular work which it was his duty to perform and so was received ‘in the course of his employment,’ under the meaning of part II, § 1, St. 1911, c. 751, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571.

The more difficult question is, ‘Did the injury arise out of the employment under the same section of the act?

In McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L. R. A. 1916A, 306, it was said by the Chief Justice, speaking for this court, that an injury “arises out of' the employment, when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work...