Pearson v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 28704.,28704. |
| Citation | 242 N.W. 721,186 Minn. 155 |
| Parties | PEARSON et al. v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Commission.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary A. Pearson and another, claimants, against the Ford Motor Company, employer, for compensation for the death of Victor E. Pearson, employee, deceased. To review an award of compensation in favor of the claimants, the employer brings certiorari.
Order affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence sustains the finding that the deceased employee received a heat stroke and that it caused his death.
2. The evidence does not require a finding that the decedent's bodily condition, particularly an enlargement of the liver, in connection with excessive drinking, if there was such, was the cause of his death; and, though such condition was a predisposing or contributing cause, it does not prevent compensation for a heat stroke which was the immediately producing cause.
3. The finding of the Industrial Commission that the heat stroke was an accident is sustained.
4. The evidence sustains a finding that the death of the decedent arose out of his employment. Doherty, Rumble, Bunn & Butler, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Joseph F. Cowern and John Christopherson, both of St. Paul, for respondents.
Certiorari on the relation of the Ford Motor Company to the Industrial Commission to review the award of compensation for the death of Victor E. Pearson, of whom Mary A. Pearson and her son, his stepson, were the beneficiaries.
The Ford company's claims are comprehended within the following: (1) That the decedent did not come to his death by a heat stroke; (2) that the actual and proximate cause of his death was an enlargement of the liver; and in connection therewith it claims chronic alcoholism; (3) that, if there was a heat stroke, it was not an accident; (4) that, if an accident, it did not arise out of his employment.
The findings of the commission negative these claims; and they sustain the claim of the beneficiaries that the decedent's death was ‘caused by accident, arising out of and in the course of employment.’ Mason's Minn. St. 1927, § 4269.
1. The decedent had worked at the Ford plant for several years. He was in the glass department. The building was largely of glass. There was a furnace inside. The molten glass ran from the furnace into the annealing oven. The decedent worked at some distance from the furnace. His work was to carry, with another, plates of glass weighing 50 to 100 or 110 pounds a distance of 18 feet. The men wore leather wristlets, leather sleevelets, and cotton gloves to protect against the glass they carried. Shortly before 7 o'clock in the morning of July 10, 1930, the decedent collapsed and died within an hour. His shift commenced at the midnight preceding. He was sick during the night. For the week ending July 6, 1930, he had been sick at home. It is conceded that on the 10th he had better have been in a hospital than in the plant and this because of his bodily condition. He was not fit to work.
Commencing July 5, 1930, and continuing until July 11, 1930, the weather was warm, averaging 86 degrees in the daytime and 77 degrees at night. About 7 in the morning of the 10th the humidity was 83 degrees. The exact temperature at the decedent's place of work is not shown. It was warm.
Shortly before 7 the decedent became irrational, was given attention at the first-aid station in the plant and collapsed and died as before stated. An autopsy was had. The consensus of opinion among the physicians was that he received and died from a heat stroke. The finding of the commission in accordance therewith is sustained.
2. The claim of the company that his death is to be referred to the diseased condition of his liver or other bodily ailment is now to be noted. Its contention is that the proximate cause of the employee's death was his diseased liver, coupled with some claim of alcoholism and that compensation cannot be given for the results of a heat stroke, for it was not a cause of his death.
The deceased had an enlargement of the liver to twice its normal size. He was more susceptible than otherwise he would have been to death from a heat stroke. The evidence did not require a finding of chronic alcoholism. There was evidence which is not disputed that he drank. Some of his associates did not know of it. His personal physician did not think he drank to excess-did not know that he drank at all except by his admission. He understood only that he drank beer occasionally, and did not think it hurt him. The claim of chronic alcoholism is without much foundation in the facts.
The company's pathologist gave the chief cause of the decedent's death as chronic alcoholism. He made a post mortem examination and made a microscopic analysis of the liver. The autopsy disclosed some congestion of the brain. The evidence did not require a finding of chronic alcoholism nor a finding that a bad liver was the cause of death. Other physicians said, and there was a mass of medical testimony, that the condition of the decedent's liver, and perhaps his general bad physical condition, made him susceptible to a stroke or contributed to a fatal result; but still put a heat stroke as the immediate cause.
An employer takes the employee as he is; and, if a heat stroke was a contributing or immediate cause of the decedent's death, though his diseased bodily condition was a factor, compensation was due. Hogan v. Twin City, etc., 155 Minn. 199, 193 N. W. 122;Babich v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 157 Minn. 122, 195 N. W. 784,202 N. W. 904;Klika v. Independent School Dist., 166 Minn. 55, 207 N. W. 185;Walker v. Minnesota Steel Co., 167 Minn. 475, 209 N. W. 635;Valeri v. Village of Hibbing, 169 Minn. 241, 211 N. W. 8;Bauman v. Roth Downs Mfg. Co., 177 Minn. 98, 224 N. W. 459. It is enough that it is the immediate or inciting cause-that it hurried a result which was likely to come some time. See 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2d Ed. & Supp.) §§ 10396-10397, 10406, and cases cited.
3. The Workmen's Compensation Act defines accident as follows: ‘The word ‘accident’ as used in the phrases ‘personal injuries due to accident’ or ‘injuries or death caused by...
To continue reading
Request your trial