Payne v. Sullivan County
Decision Date | 02 March 1931 |
Parties | NANCY E. PAYNE, RESPONDENT, v. SULLIVAN COUNTY, EMPLOYER FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Sullivan County.--Hon. Paul Van Osdol Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
U. A House and L. E. Atherton for respondent.
George A. Hodgman for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court affirming an award in the sum of $ 3462, made by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, as death benefits, to respondent as the widow and dependent of one John O. Payne, deceased, against Sullivan County, Missouri, as the employer, and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, as insurer.
While there are ten assignments of error, as we read appellants' brief, the sole question therein presented for review is whether, considering the provisions of section 13D, of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act, under the evidence submitted and findings made by the commission, such award was justified. This section (Missouri Session Acts 1927, page 498,) reads as follows:
It is conceded of record that plaintiff's husband, while in the course of his employment by Sullivan County in the replacement of an old bridge, accidentally stepped on a nail protruding from a timber; that death ensued caused by tetanus or lock jaw resulting therefrom; that the respondent, claimant, is his widow and filed her claim in due time; that if such death was compensable, the sum awarded was properly within the terms of the Act. Appellants urge that under the evidence the court erred in sustaining the award of the commission for the reason that the death in question resulted from the employee's unreasonable refusal to accept and permit the administering of tetanus anti-toxin or serum. Hence that such ruling was violative of the provisions of the statute, supra. To this issue, then, we shall address ourselves.
In addition to the evidence already noted, the record discloses the injury occurred on July 24, 1928, a few miles from Milan, the county seat of Sullivan County, where Payne resided; that the employee was taken immediately to Milan and upon arrival, he called upon a Dr. Garner of that city; that an examination disclosed a penetrating wound near the large toe of the left foot; that local treatment was then given; that the doctor advised the use of anti-tetanus serum which, however, was not then administered; that Payne stated he had run nails in his foot before and even without the aid of a doctor no difficulty had been caused; that he was not informed at the time that such administration of anti-toxin would be furnished without cost, and was painless and without any practical danger to his life or limb; that anti-tetanus serum was not in general use in the community; that after tetanus, or lock jaw, as it is commonly called, developed, such serum was used without any benefit and his death occurred August 7, 1928; that if the serum had been given when first mentioned, tetanus would have been unlikely; that generally, such serum is a specific preventative.
Since this controversy primarily centers around the evidence of Dr. Garner, who was a witness on behalf of appellants, we quote part of this testimony:
. . .
. . . .
(Objection interposed; overruled.)
(Objection; overruled.)
. . .
. . .
. . .
We note also the testimony of Dr. Montgomery, a resident physician of Milan of more than twenty-five years practice, who was called by appellants. So far as material to the discussion herein, we quote his testimony, as follows:
"Q. Would you think, doctor, that, in this community, the safest proper and accepted practice for such a treatment would be the injection, promptly, after the injury of tetanus anti-toxin? A. Well, I don't know whether you could say that was thoroughly established or not. As a matter of fact, tetanus is not common in this community. I have seen one case in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reeves v. Fraser-Brace Engineering Co.
... ... Appeal ... from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County; Hon. Edgar B ... Woolfolk, Judge ... ... Affirmed ... ... Chestnut St. Realty Co., 235 Mo.App. 309, 133 S.W.2d ... 1056; Payne v. Sullivan County, 225 Mo.App. 126, 36 ... S.W.2d 127; Cuchi v. George C. Pendergast & Sons ... ...
-
Wood v. Wagner Elec. Corp.
... ... 1128, 33 S.W.2d 154; Cuchi v. Geo. C. Prendergast & Sons, 72 S.W.2d 136; Payne v. Sullivan County, ... 225 Mo.App. 126, 36 S.W.2d 127; Perry v. Kreis, 49 ... S.W.2d 220; Strong ... ...