Pate v. Plymouth Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 08 November 1941 |
Docket Number | 15316. |
Citation | 17 S.E.2d 146,198 S.C. 159 |
Parties | PATE v. PLYMOUTH MFG. CO. et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Norbert A. Theodore, of Columbia, and J. E. Dudley, of Bennettsville for appellant.
Stevenson & Lindsay of Bennettsville, for respondents.
Eugene Pate, the appellant above named, was a regular employee of Plymouth Manufacturing Company at its mill plant at McColl, in Marlboro County, as a doffer. He was injured on July 29, 1940, in an automobile collision a number of miles from the mill property, while returning from a baseball game, in which presumably he had participated, and claimed compensation for such injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act, alleging that it was "the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Plymouth Manufacturing Company," American Mutual Liability Insurance Company being its insurance carrier.
The claim came on for a hearing before Coleman C. Martin, Esq. one of the Commissioners, who in due time filed his opinion and award in favor of claimant, which was thereafter reviewed by the full Commission, which by a majority sustained the hearing Commissioner, their opinion and award being filed on April 8, 1941. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County, which was heard before Honorable E. C. Dennis, presiding Judge, who handed down his order dated May 30, 1941, reversing the Commission. The claimant then appealed to this Court upon five exceptions but counsel for the appellant state in their argument that the sole question for decision in this case is: "Is the evidence as shown by the record and the testimony in the case sufficient to support the findings of facts of the South Carolina Industrial Commission that the injuries received by Eugene Pate were sustained as the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Plymouth Manufacturing Company, and that such injury was compensable?"
We are of course in full accord with counsel for appellant in the view that the Commission's findings of fact are conclusive, if there is any reasonable basis for the same in the evidence; but the single ultimate question involved in this appeal is, whether or not the injuries sustained by the claimant arose "out of and in the course of the employment," within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Compensation Act, 39 St. at Large, p. 1233?
This may ordinarily be termed a mixed question of law and of fact. But where the evidence is undisputed the question is really one of law only; and upon a careful review of the record in the case at bar we find that there is no real conflict in the testimony as to any material point. The following excerpt from the carefully prepared order of Judge Dennis is a fair statement of the evidence as contained in the transcript:
To continue reading
Request your trial