Langley v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

Decision Date24 January 1962
Docket NumberNo. 7010,7010
Citation369 P.2d 774,70 N.M. 34,1962 NMSC 18
PartiesL. H. LANGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., and Transport Indemnity Co., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

Wm. W. Osborn, Roswell, for appellant.

McAtee, Toulouse, Marchiondo, Ruud & Gallagher, Albuquerque, for appellees.

CHAVEZ, Justice.

Plaintiff-appellant, L. H. Langley, an employee of appellee, Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., filed claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received on May 16, 1960. By answer, appellees affirmatively alleged that appellant at no time gave written notice of any accident and/or resultant injury, and that no superintendent or foreman, or other agent in charge of the work in connection with which the accident occurred, had actual knowledge of its occurrence as provided by Sec. 59-10-13.4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.

The case was tried by the district court without a jury, who found for appellees and entered judgment dismissing the claim. This appeal followed.

The trial court found that appellant did not give notice in writing to appellee-employer, Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., within sixty days after the occurrence of the accident, and that the appellant was not prevented by any reason of his alleged injury, or by any other cause beyond his control, from giving such notice within the time provided.

Appellant, an employee of Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., at Roswell, New Mexico, suffered an injury to his back while lifting a bundle of pipe on May 16, 1960. Appellant, although feeling pain in his back, felt it was a pulled muscle and thought that it would get well. He had the same sensation before and each time it would go away. He continued working as dock foreman until June 21, 1960, when he consulted Dr. C. D. Kaiser of Roswell. Appellant was given a conservative treatment to try to relieve pain and hospitalized on June 26, 1960. At the hospital he was treated by traction and medication and released on July 1, 1960. Appellant returned to work on July 5, 1960, and worked until September 16, 1960. Due to his injury, appellant was unable to work from September 16, 1960 to January 21, 1961. During the above period appellant saw Dr. Kaiser and underwent surgery by Dr. W. A. Jones, a neuro-surgeon at El Paso, Texas. On January 23, 1961, appellant was reemployed by Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. at a lower rate than what he was receiving at the time of the injury, with a permanent disability of 10% of the body as a whole.

W. E. Nelson, the terminal manager for Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. at Roswell, was the immediate superior of appellant. Nelson visited appellant at the hospital on June 27 or 28, 1960, at which time appellant told Nelson that it was not an old injury. Nelson's information as to the injury at the time that he visited appellant at the hospital was the appellant's back was hurting him.

Appellant was injured in a truck-railroad-train accident in 1947, but fully recovered from this injury and was gainfully employed continuously as a truck driver and dock foreman from September 21, 1957, to the time of the injury sustained on May 16, 1960.

Appellant received an insurance form or statement of claim in triplicate for group insurance from the Truck Drivers' Union. Appellant first took the forms which were in blank to Dr. C. D. Kaiser who filled in the attending physician's statement and signed the same on July 7, 1960. On July 13, 1960, appellant filled in the part to be completed by the employee and also signed the form. On the morning of July 13, 1960, appellant took the forms to W. E. Nelson, and left them on his desk. Nelson filled in the part to be completed by the employer, signed each of the three forms, and returned them to appellant at the close of the working day on July 13, 1960. Appellant 'guessed' that the forms were notice to Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.

Dr. Kaiser, in his statement, set out that the injury was a 'lumbrosacral strain and disc syndrome,' stated the dates of treatment at his office and at the hospital, and that the injury arose out of appellant's employment.

Appellant stated in the part completed by him that the disability was a 'ruptured disc.' He described how the injury occurred and set out that the injury occurred on the job. By mistake, appellant wrote that the injury occurred on June 16, 1960, whereas it actually occurred on May 16, 1960.

Appellant asserts three points upon which he relies for reversal:

I. The court erred in denying plaintiff's requested finding of fact No. 1, concerning the latent and disabling nature of the injury.

II. The court erred in denying plaintiff's requested findings of fact Nos. 2, 3 and 4, concerning written and actual knowledge of plaintiff's injury.

III. The court erred in denying plaintiff's requested finding of fact No. 5, concerning the liquidated sum stipulated as recoverable by the plaintiff, and the attorney fees to be allowed to plaintiff's attorney.

We will discuss points I and II together. Section 59-10-13.4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., provides:

'59-10-13.4. Notice to employer.---- A. Any workman claiming to be entitled to compensation from any employer shall give notice in writing to his employer of the accident and of the injury within thirty days after their occurrence; unless, by reason of his injury or some other cause beyond his control the workman is prevented from giving notice within that time, in which case he shall give notice as soon as may reasonably be done, and at all events not later than sixty days after the occurrence of the accident.

'B. No written notice is required to be given where the employer or any superintendent or foreman or other agent in charge of the work in connection with which the accident occurred had actual knowledge of its occurrence.'

The parties stipulated as follows:

1. That at the time of the injury complained of appellant was employed as a dock foreman by Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. at wages in excess of $100 per week.

2. That appellant's employment was covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

3. That the total time lost from work due to appellant's injury was twenty weeks.

4. That the medical reports of W. A. Jones, M. D., neuro-surgeon of El Paso, Texas, would be admitted in evidence at the trial.

5. That the total medical expenses of appellant due to this injury and treatment thereof were $1425.28.

6. That the liquidated damages of appellant, according to the stipulation hereinbefore referred to, appear in the requested findings of fact of appellant as follows:

(a) Payment for total temporary disability--$760;

(b) Payment for medical expenses--$1425.28;

(c) Payment for 10% partial permanent disability--$1900; total--$4085.28.

7. The total attorney fees requested were $1395.

The evidence is undisputed that appellant suffered his back injury on May 16, 1960, during the course of his employment. He thought it was a pulled muscle and would get well. Appellant had previously had the same sensation several times and each time the pain went away. He continued working until June 21, 1960, when he saw Dr. Kaiser. Dr. Kaiser testified that appellant had radiation of pain in his back and down in his right leg. Appellant was given conservative treatment to relieve pain and to try to relax the muscle spasm. Appellant was hospitalized on June 26, 1960, was discharged on July 1, 1960, and was to return to work on July 5, 1960, which ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Casias v. Zia Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 17 Mayo 1979
    ...such an interpretation. The construction there adopted has long been followed in this jurisdiction, E. g., Langley v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 70 N.M. 34, 369 P.2d 774 (1962); Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 82 N.M. 424, 483 P.2d 305 (Ct.App.1970). It was stated flatly, in Anaya v. Big Th......
  • Rohrer v. Eidal Intern.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 27 Noviembre 1968
    ...plaintiff is charged with such knowledge. Sanchez v. City of Albuquerque, 75 N.M. 137, 401 P.2d 583 (1965); Langley v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 70 N.M. 34, 369 P.2d 774 (1962). The accident happened on March 11th; the employer had actual knowledge on April 14th. The closer to April 14th ......
  • Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Jarde
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1963
    ...to accomplish these ends--a doctrine to which we are committed. Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co., supra; Langley v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 70 N.M. 34, 369 P.2d 774. The reasoning in Winchester v. Stanton-Wallace Const. Co., supra, is most convincing and we adopt it and conclude, as did the......
  • Budagher v. Loe
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1962
    ... ... LOE, Howard Herbert and Albuquerque Discount Club, ... Inc., a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees ... Supreme Court of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT