Miller v. Beil
| Decision Date | 28 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10,759 |
| Citation | 129 N.E. 493,75 Ind.App. 13 |
| Parties | MILLER ET AL. v. BEIL ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frank J. Beil and another against Jacob Miller and another. From an award for applicants, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Turner Merrill & Locke, for appellants.
O. E Brumbaugh, for appellees.
Appellants were in the business of threshing wheat and other grain. Steam power was used, and appellants had in their employ at the time one Carl Beil, whose duty it was to haul water from a nearby reservoir in a water tank drawn by horses. The water tank was made of wood, and was seven and one-half feet long, three feet wide, and twenty-eight inches deep, with an opening in the top twenty-three inches square. By the side of the opening, and fastened to the top of the tank, was a pump. When the tank was being filled, the water was pumped through a hose which connected the pump with the reservoir. In operating the pump it was necessary for Beil to stand on the top of the tank near the opening. On the morning of July 12, 1919, and a short time after Beil in the course of his employment had gone to get water, the tank, partially filled with water, was found at the reservoir; and in the tank was the lifeless body of Beil. The employe who thus lost his life was subject to epilepsy.
Appellees, who were the dependents of Beil, made application to the Industrial Board for compensation, and, upon hearing the evidence showing the above facts, the board found that said employe died as the result of an injury received by him by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and made an award.
Appellants have assigned as error that the findings and award are not sustained by sufficient evidence, and are contrary to law. It is urged by appellants that there is no evidence to show that the death of the employe was the result of an injury arising out of his employment; but that "from all the evidence in the case it appears conclusively that the death was the result of a disease to which deceased was subject;" and that, under clause (d) of § 76 of the Workmen's Compensation Act , the dependents are not entitled to compensation.
There is no direct evidence that appellees' decedent fell in the tank as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co.
...Christensen v. Dysert et al., 42 N.M. 107, 76 P.2d 1; United States Cas. Co. v. Richardson, Ga.App., 43 S.E.2d 793; Miller et al. v. Beil et al., 75 Ind.App. 13, 129 N.E. 493; Board of Com'rs of Greene Co. v. Shertzer et al., 73 Ind.App. 589, 127 N.E. 843; Industrial Comm. of Ohio v. Nelson......
-
Hull v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...Comm. (1921) 300 Ill. 87, 132 N.E. 759, 19 A.L.R. 80 (epileptic fell into bed of hot cinders; compensation allowed); Miller v. Beil (1921) 75 Ind.App. 13, 129 N.E. 493 (epileptic fell into open water tank; compensation In later years the rule has become established that an accident which wo......
-
Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Dehn
...of the employee was the result of an accident arising out of his employment was a question for the Industrial Board. In Miller v. Beil, 1921, 75 Ind.App. 13, 129 N.E. 493, it was necessary for a workman employed to haul water in water tank drawn by horses, to stand on the top of the tank, w......
-
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Douglas
...decedent was the result of an accident arising out of his employment was a question of fact for the Industrial Board. Miller v. Beil, 1921, 75 Ind.App. 13, 15, 129 N.E. 493, and its finding thereon, where supported by some evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal, Self v. Shirkie Coal Comp......