Kraker v. Nett

• Decision Date: 21 January 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22148.,22148.
• Citation: 180 N.W. 1014,148 Minn. 139
• Parties: KRAKER v. NETT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

148 Minn. 139

180 N.W. 1014

KRAKER

v.NETT.

No. 22148.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 21, 1921.

Certiorari from District Court, Stearns County; John A. Roeser, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Mathias Kraker against John Nett. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The finding that the loss of plaintiff's eye resulted from an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that relator had actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury within 90 days after it happened, is sustained by the evidence. Donohue & Quigley, of St. Cloud, and M. C. Tifft, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

R. B. Brower and J. B. Himsl, both of St. Cloud, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8195-8230). The court awarded the claimant the compensation prescribed by statute for the loss of an eye. That he lost the sight of his right eye is conceded.

The relator contends: (1) That the finding that claimant's loss of sight resulted from an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment is not sustained by the evidence; (2) that the finding that relator had actual knowledge of the injury within 90 days after the happening thereof is not sustained by the evidence.

1. Relator operates a lumber yard and deals in building material, including cement, at the village of Albany in Stearns county. Claimant was employed to work in the yard, and his duties included handling cement and delivering it to customers. Claimant testified that while putting loose cement in a sack on a windy day some of it got in his eye; that it caused pain and made the eye red; that the eye continually grew worse and more painful thereafter, although he applied various home remedies and remedies which he obtained at a drug store; that these affording no relief he consulted Dr. Watson and applied the medicine prescribed by him; and that, his eye continuing to grow worse, he finally consulted Dr. Whiting, an eye specialist. He first consulted Dr. Whiting about three months after the cement got in his eye. Dr. Whiting testified as to the condition of the eye when he first examined it; that he had seen the action of cement on the exposed portion of the eye in many cases; that such action is caustic and corrosive, and destructive of the tissues; and that the condition in which he found claimant's eye might have resulted from getting cement into it.

The finding that the loss of the eye resulted from getting cement into it in the manner and at the time claimed by claimant is sustained by the evidence within the rule stated in State ex rel. v. District Court, 142 Minn. 335, 172 N. W. 133,State ex rel. v. District Court, 145 Minn. 127, 176 N. W. 165, and State ex rel. v. District Court, 177 N. W. 934, and cannot be disturbed by this court.

2. Section 8213, G. S. 1913, reads:

‘Unless the employer shall have actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury, or unless the injured workman, or a dependent, or some one in behalf of either, shall give notice thereof to the employer in writing, within fourteen (14) days after the occurrence of the injury, then no compensation shall be due until such notice is given or knowledge obtained. If the notice is given, or the knowledge obtained within thirty (30) days from the occurrence of the injury, no want, failure, or inaccuracy of a notice shall be a bar to obtaining compensation, unless the employer shall show that he was prejudiced by such want, defect, or inaccuracy, and then only to the extent of such prejudice. If the notice is given, or the knowledge obtained within ninety (90) days, and if the employé, or other beneficiary, shall show that his failure to give prior notice was due to his mistake, inadvertence, ignorance of fact or law, or inability, or to the fraud, misrepresentation or deceit...