Olsen v. Winter Park Racquet Club

• Decision Date: 29 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. 31523,31523
• Citation: 142 So.2d 5
• Parties: Alice E. OLSEN, Petitioner, v. WINTER PARK RACQUET CLUB, General Guaranty Insurance Company and The Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 5

142 So.2d 5

Alice E. OLSEN, Petitioner, v. WINTER PARK RACQUET CLUB, General Guaranty Insurance Company and The Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 31523.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 29, 1962.

Magyar, Icardi & Bergstrom, Orlando, for petitioner.

Heskin A. Whittaker, Orlando, Burnis T. Coleman and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for respondents.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.

Alice E. Olsen, the claimant, is the widow of Gordon Olsen who was an employee of Winter Park Racquet Club. On June 6, 1960, Olsen went to work for his employer as was his custom and later in the morning he was found dead in the chlorinating room, a small room about 5' X 6' in size, on the premises of his employer. Mrs. Alice E. Olsen filed claim for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim was heard by the deputy commissioner who on February 20, 1961, entered an order awarding benefits to Mrs. Olsen including funeral expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. On appeal the case was reviewed by the full commission who on October 17, 1961, reversed the order of the deputy commissioner on the theory that there was no substantial competent evidence which accords with logic and reason to support the finding of the deputy commissioner that Olsen's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

We are confronted with an appeal by certiorari from the order of the full commission.

Two questions are urged for consideration. (1) Was Olsen's death the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? (2) Was there competent substantial evidence showing that Olsen did not come to his death by suicide?

We treat these questions together. The employer and carrier contend (1) that Olsen did not come to his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and (2) that Olsen's death was occasioned primarily by his wilful intention to kill himself.

The evidence shown that Olsen had been an employee of respondent for approximately three years at the time of his death. He was originally employed by respondent as a yardman and tennis court caretaker. In addition to his duties as yardman and tennis court caretaker, he looked after chlorinating the swimming pool in the winter season. On or about May 6, 1960, Olsen's duties were reduced at his request so that his only duty was looking after the tennis courts which he could accomplish in one-half day.

Early in the morning of June 6, 1960, some ladies were playing bridge on the patio near the chlorinating room. One of them detecting the odor of gas reported it to Mrs. Hall who was working in the clubhouse. Mrs. Hall called the lifeguard, Mr. Lyden, who came and when he got within 30 or 40 feet of the chlorinating room noticed the strong smell of gas. He knew how quickly chlorine gas acted on one so he called Atlantic Chemical Company who sent a man out with a mask to shut off the gas. The man arrived at the chlorinating room about 12 o'clock noon, forced the door open against pressure that he found was caused by the dead body of Olsen lying against the door which opened to the inside of the room.

Mr. Lyden called the police and after putting on a mask helped move the body of Olsen from the chlorinating room. Shortly thereafter officers from the sheriff's office and the medical examiner came. The light in the chlorinating room did not function, neither did the fan which was frozen to the staff. Neither had functioned for some time. A representative from the sheriff's office, the medical examiner and a consulting engineer made an examination. One of them, Mr. Fugere, turned off the gas and the other two went into the chlorinating room to see where the body of Olsen was. One of them, Mr. Young, also noticed the position of the wrenches on the gas tank connections, as well as some rags hanging on the wall.

The wrench on the valve at the top of the chlorine tank regulated the flow of chlorine to the pool. The opening of this valve caused the chlorine to travel a cable to the water mixer, then to the pool. The regulating wrench was at all times left on the valve at the top of the tank. The second wrench, a stillson, was located on a coupling nut, which nut would normally be disconnected to effect a change of tanks. The coupling nut was loose one-quarter of a turn and on bringing the stillson down one-quarter of a turn from the straight position, it would tighten the nut. It was through this loose connection that the gas was escaping.

The chlorinating room had two openings beside the door--one, a window, and the other a ventilating fan. It is shown that after the deputies, the gas man and the men from the engineering company had been several times in the chlorinating room, the windows and the exhaust fan were found to be covered with shirts which were first seen by the deputy sheriff from the outside after other trips had been made into the room by him and one of the engineers. The shirts were draped over the openings. Despite this condition, there was sufficient illumination in the room when the door was left open. Tests made by Atlantic Chemical Company, the engineering company, and Mr. Fugere showed that when the coupling nut was properly tightened, there was no leakage of gas from the cylinder. During the engineer's examination it was observed that the flow indicator on the chlorine tank was not operating and they recommended that it be replaced.

For an injury to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act it must be shown to have occurred within the period of employment, at a place when the injured employee may have been reasonably expected to be and while he is...