Mershon v. Missouri Public Service Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1949
• Docket Number: 41096
• Parties: Elva Mershon, Appellant, v. Missouri Public Service Corporation, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

221 S.W.2d 165

359 Mo. 257

Elva Mershon, Appellant, v. Missouri Public Service Corporation, Respondent

No. 41096

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 13, 1949

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. John R. James Judge.

Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

The findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission against compensation are sustained. The evidence indicated a suicide not connected with any injury in the course of employment. The findings were sufficient in the absence of a request for more specific findings.

Wayne Hire, Rufus Burrus and Charles V. Garnett for appellant.

(1) The trial court, and the Commission, erred in failing to apply the rule of liberal construction to the act itself, and the proceedings under it. Sec. 3764, Mo. R.S. Ann.; Murphy v. Wells-Lamont-Smith Corp., 155 S.W.2d 284; Blaine v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 150 S.W.2d 947; Reed v. Sensenbaugh, 229 Mo.App. 883, 86 S.W.2d 388; Harder v. Thrift Construction Co., 53 S.W.2d 34. (2) The trial court, and the Commission, erred in failing to apply the legal presumption against suicide, and in failing to apply the statutory rule that the burden of proof is upon the employer to prove intentional self-destruction. Sec. 3691, Mo. R.S. Ann.; Cases cited under Point (3), (4), infra. (3) The undisputed facts create the presumption that the electrical burns were sustained in the course of and in consequence of decedent's employment. Wahlig v. Krenning-Schlapp Grocery Co., 325 Mo. 677, 29 S.W.2d 128; Oswald v. Caradine Hat Co., 109 S.W.2d 893. (4) The self-inflicted injury resulting in death was not inflicted with suicidal intent, but because of the hysteria and shock produced by the burns, and was an accident sustained in the course of and in consequence of decedent's employment. Rittenberg v. Abbott Laboratories, 45 A.2d 400; Medina v. New Mexico Consolidated Mining Co., 188 P.2d 343; Hughes v. Covert Mfg. Co., 66 N.Y.S. (2d) 29; Phillips v. R. & M. Operating Co., 75 N.Y.S. (2d) 898; Gilpin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 132 S.W.2d 686; Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 56 S.Ct. 190.

Stanley G. Patterson and Patterson, Cowherd, Smith & Patterson for respondent.

(1) Rule of liberal construction does not cure a compensation claim that lacks essential elements required by the act. Pruitt v. Harker, 328 Mo. 1200, 43 S.W.2d 769; Moscicki v. American Foundry Mfg. Co., 103 S.W.2d 491; Reed v. Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co., 156 S.W.2d 747; Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., 171 S.W.2d 781. (2) The burden of proof that employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment rested upon appellant and was not modified or shifted by the legal presumption against suicide. The presumption against suicide is a rebuttable legal presumption and was rebutted by evidence adduced by respondent. Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 414, 230 S.W. 103; Griffith v. Continental Casualty Co., 290 Mo. 455, 235 S.W. 83; Griffith v. Continental Casualty Co., 299 Mo. 426, 253 S.W. 1043. (3) The presumption against suicide is not evidence and it was proper for the trial court and the Commission not to afford it the weight of evidence in the determination of the case. Brunswick v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 278 Mo. 154, 213 S.W. 45; Mackowik v. Kansas City, St. J. & C.B.R. Co., 196 Mo. l.c. 571, 94 S.W. 256; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, sec. 166. (4) Appellant failed to prove that decedent sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid, 28 S.W.2d 97, 325 Mo. 107; Bollinger v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 67 S.W.2d 985, 334 Mo. 720; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, sec. 164. (5) Appellant failed to prove that the death of the employee was the result of injuries sustained in an alleged accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. McCoy v. Simpson, 346 Mo. 72, 139 S.W.2d 950; Smith v. Grace, 159 S.W.2d 383, 237 Mo.App. 91; Baird v. Gleaner Harvester Corp., 172 S.W.2d 892. (6) Appellant may not now complain upon appeal that the referee's and the Commission's findings of fact were not adequate and complete. Smith v. General Motors Corp., 189 S.W.2d 259; Scott v. Wheelock Bros., 209 S.W.2d 149; Kelsall v. Riss & Co., 165 S.W.2d 329. (7) The award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and will not be set aside upon appeal unless found to be clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence. Brown v. Weber Implement & Auto Co., 206 S.W.2d 350; Seabaugh's Dependents v. Garver Lbr. Mfg. Co., 200 S.W.2d 55; Wood v. Wagner Elec. Corp., 197 S.W.2d 647.

OPINION

Clark, P. J.

Workmen's Compensation. Claimant appeals from a judgment of the circuit court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission denying all relief to claimant for the death of her husband.

Charles Mershon, husband of claimant, was found dead with his throat cut on October 26, 1945. It is conceded that his death was due to self-inflicted knife wounds. At the time and for several years prior to his death he was employed as local manager by respondent, a public utility engaged in manufacturing and distributing electric current. His duties were to service and repair transmission lines, transformers and other electrical equipment, read meters, and collect accounts for his employer.

Appellant filed a claim for compensation alleging that "Insured, while attempting repairs to transmission lines, transformers and other electrical equipment, came in contact with high voltage wires and suffered electrical shock from which he died."

Respondent denied that Mershon died as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and stated that his death resulted from and was directly caused by an intentional self-inflicted stab wound in the throat and neck.

Mershon left his home on the morning of October 25 in a truck which he used in his work. He had previously received complaints from customers of poor electric service. About nine o'clock that morning his truck was seen parked near a gasoline filling station about one hundred yards from a substation enclosing one of the transformers maintained by his employer. When he failed to return home for lunch a search was begun and continued through the day. The next morning bloodhounds were obtained and led the searchers across fields nearly a mile to a ravine where Mershon's dead body was found. In addition to the stab wound in his throat, his body disclosed marks on the left hand, right elbow, right shoulder and left heel. Some of the witnesses said these were burns and other said they appeared to be burns. One witness observed a mark which he described as a "pit" mark on Mershon's jacket and others testified to a "pit" mark or white spot on some part of the wires connected with the transformer.

The evidence shows that Mershon was apparently in good health, bore a good reputation, enjoyed a pleasant home life, was active in church and civic affairs, owned an attractive home and an interest in a small business, had no past due debts and had a substantial bank account. However, respondent introduced evidence to the effect that, for several months prior to his death, Mershon had been despondent and worried over the possibility of losing his job. Witnesses testified that the claimant had expressed concern over her husband's mental attitude and had stated that he had threatened to commit suicide. Claimant denied making such statements, but admitted that she and one of her husband's friends were making arrangements to have Mershon examined by a physician. It is undisputed that some of the officers of the respondent company had made a trip to see Mershon and had assured him he was not in danger of losing his job. They also instructed a friend of Mershon to have him examined by a physician at the expense of the company. Other evidence will be discussed later.

The trial referee found against the claimant, making this specific finding: "I find from all the evidence that the claimant failed to prove that the employee sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as alleged, and I also find that the claimant further failed to prove that the death of employee was the result of injuries sustained in an alleged accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, compensation must be and is hereby denied." The Industrial Commission affirmed the finding of the referee and made a similar specific finding which was affirmed by the circuit court.

Claimant has appealed and contends that the trial court and the Commission erred: (1) In failing to apply the rule of liberal construction to the Compensation Act and the proceedings under it; (2) In failing to apply the legal presumption against suicide, and in failing to apply the statutory rule that the burden of proof is upon the employer to prove intentional self-destruction; (3) In failing to hold the evidence sufficient to entitle claimant to recover, even if she had the burden of proof.

On the first point we concede that the Compensation Act and proceedings under it should be liberally construed in favor of the employee. That is required by statute and by the decisions cited by claimant and many others. However, the rule of liberal construction does not authorize the allowance of a claim which lacks some of the essential elements required by the Act. [Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co. (Mo. App.) 171 S.W.2d 781.]

Claimant argues that the proof shows that Mershon received electric burns at a place where his duty required him to be; that a presumption arises that such burns were the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; that such burns caused "hysteria, extreme pain and mental shock which reduced him to such a state that he was unable to comprehend his act so that the...