Lusk v. Monongahela City Water Co.

Citation164 Pa.Super. 354,64 A.2d 670
Decision Date14 April 1949
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

164 Pa.Super. 354
64 A.2d 670


Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

March 21, 1949.
Application for Allocatur Denied April 14, 1949.

Appeal No. 170, April term, 1948, from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County at No. 175, August term, 1947; George T. Cummins, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. Emma Goldie Lusk, claimant, to recover compensation for death of her husband, opposed by Monongahela City Water Company, employer, wherein Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, insurance carrier, intervened as defendant. From judgment affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, in favor of claimant, the employer and insurance carrier appeal.


64 A.2d 671

John M. Reed and Joseph C. Spriggs, both of Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Bloom, Bloom & Yard, L. R. Oppenheim and George I. Bloom, all of Washington, for appellees.


RHODES, President Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of claimant in a workmen's compensation case. The question presented is whether there is competent evidence in the record sufficient to justify the eleventh and twelfth findings of fact of the Workmen's Compensation Board. These are to the effect that deceased sustained an accidental injury on November 17, 1942, in the course of his employment when he slipped on some wet pipes in the water plant of defendant, and fell and bruised his right hip, as a result of which he died on December 25, 1942. If there is such evidence in the record the award must be sustained, as the medical testimony as to the causal relation between the accidental injury and the death is admittedly sufficient.

Deceased had been employed by defendant for a period of 25 years prior to November 17, 1942, the date of the alleged accidental injury. Although he had the title of foreman, his duties were various and included work at different places in defendant's plant, as well as off the premises such as reading meters.

We are obliged to review claimant's evidence, including her own testimony, in a light most favorable to her, and to give her the benefit of all reasonable inferences. As a result, the following facts appear:

Claimant received two telephone calls from her husband on November 17, 1942, while he was at work. The first call was at 1:30 p. m., when he telephoned to ask what groceries he was to bring home that evening. He called again about 3:30 p. m. and told his wife that he fell in the upper tier of the pipe gallery at the pump station, about 3 p. m. or a half hour before he called, that he struck his leg, and that he would not be able to bring the groceries. He also told his wife in the course of the telephone conversation that he did not want to leave the plant until another employee, John Prodoresky, came to work, and that Proderesky was due to arrive about 4 p. m. 1

Deceased returned home about 5 o'clock on the evening of November 17, 1942. At

64 A.2d 672

that time his wife noticed a bruise on his right leg, between the knee and the thigh, which was the size of a goose egg. Deceased's daughter, a registered nurse, examined her father two days later, on November 19, 1942, and found a hard raised lump with a bruise extending down the outer part of his thigh. Claimant reported the alleged accident to deceased's superior, the manager of defendant's plant, on November 23, 1942...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 29, 1960
    ...... The trailer park was near the city of Klamath Falls.         Only three witnesses testified: they ...v. Logan, 361 P. 186, 63 A.2d 28, syl. 5 (1949) (7 minutes); Lusk v. Monongahela Water Co., 164 Pa.Super. 354, 64 A.2d 670, syl. 2-6 (1949) ......
  • Rohner v. Fox Prod.s Appeal Of Fox Prod.s Appeal Of Commonwealth Of Pa. Occupational Disease Fund.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 15, 1949 respect to the testimony before it. See Kline v. Kiehl, 157 Pa.Super. 392, 396, 43 A.2d 616; Lusk v. Monongahela City Water Co., 164 Pa.Super. 354, 360, 64 A.2d 670; Puzio v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 126 Pa.Super. 488, 492, 191 A. 222; Baumeister v. Baugh & Sons Co., 142 Pa.Super. 346......
  • Rohner v. Fox Products
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 15, 1949
    ...... it. See Kline v. Kiehl, 157 Pa.Super. 392, 396, 43. A.2d 616; Lusk v. Monongahela City Water Co., 164. Pa.Super. 354, 360, 64 A.2d 670; ......
  • Leber v. Naftulin
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 21, 1955
    ...the ladder was, therefore, corroborative and admissible under the Nesbit case, supra. See also, Lusk v. Monongahela City Water Co., 164 Pa.Super. 354, 64 A.2d 670. The probable nature of an accident may be shown by circumstantial evidence alone, Nazarey v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 131 Pa.Sup......
  • 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