Price v. B. F. Shaw Co.

• Decision Date: 20 August 1953
• Docket Number: No. 16775,16775
• Citation: 77 S.E.2d 491,224 S.C. 89
• Parties: PRICE v. B. F. SHAW CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 491

77 S.E.2d 491

224 S.C. 89

PRICE v. B. F. SHAW CO. et al.

No. 16775.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 20, 1953.

Whaley & McCutchen, Columbia, for appellant.

Blatt & Fales, Barnwell, for respondent

BAKER, Chief Justice.

Following the death of W. E. Price on March 3, 1952, his widow, the respondent, filed claim with the South Carolina Industrial Commission against B. F. Shaw Company and its workmen's compensation insurer, appellants herein, for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law growing out of the death of her husband. Appellants denied liability to respondent on the grounds that death did not result from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that respondent had forfeited any right to the benefits of such by her refusal to permit an autopsy as requested by appellants.

A hearing was held before a Commissioner of the Industrial Commission on April 3, 1952. On June 26, 1952, the Commissioner filed an Opinion and Award against appellants for compensation benefits to respondent for $8,000 on the grounds that respondent was the sole dependent of her husband who, while an employee of appellant-employer on March 3, 1952, sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death on that date. Appellants applied to the Industrial Commission for a review of the Opinion and Award. By Opinion and Award of September 9, 1952, the Industrial Commission affirmed the Award of the Hearing Commissioner. Appellants then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. Such appeal was heard by Honorable J. M. Brailsford, Jr., the presiding Judge, who, on November 29, 1952, filed an Order overruling the exceptions and affirming the Award of the Industrial Commission. From such Order comes this appeal.

The exceptions to the Opinion and Award of the Single or Hearing Commissioner; to the Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission affirming the Hearing Commissioner; and to the Order of the Circuit Judge overruling the exceptions and affirming the Award of the Industrial Commission, while more in detail, are embraced in the 'Questions Involved' as stated in appellants' printed brief and read:

'1. * * *

'2. Did the death of the deceased employee result from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment?'

We have set out only the second question involved, since, in our view of the case, it will be unnecessary to pass upon the other issue.

The limit of our inquiry in workmen's compensation cases appealed from the findings of the Industrial Commission has long been well settled, and is admirably and succinctly stated in Raley v. City of Camden, 222 S.C. 303, 310, 72 S.E.2d 572, 575, as follows:

'On appeal from the award of the Industrial Commission, the Circuit Court, and this Court, are limited in their inquiry to determine whether there was any competent evidence before the Commission to reasonably support its findings of fact, and whether such findings justified its legal conclusions and decisions. If the findings of fact of the Commission are supported by competent evidence, this court must sustain the Commission. But of course, any finding of fact by the Commission must be founded upon evidence, and cannot rest on surmise, conjecture and speculation.' (Citing authorities.)

Such being the law, it is necessary that we summarize the evidence appearing in the record.

The deceased, prior to his death, had been suffering from heart trouble, and having attacks therefrom 'off and on' for at least two years, during which period he was receiving treatment from Dr. M. E. Massoud of Pinora, Georgia. Respondent and the deceased were married on October 5, 1951, and came to South Carolina on the 14th of the same month. When they went home (Georgia), we assume on visits, the deceased would go to see Dr. Massoud, which was 'some two or three times, to get a check-up, more or less, for colds and different things, * * * and I reckon he would, for his heart too.'

On March 3, 1952 (the day of his death), at about 4 o'clock A.M., Mr. Price woke up complaining of a pain in his chest, and had shortness of breath. He had a numbness in his arm and hand, and requested the respondent to rub same, which she did, and she thought he went back to sleep. Later, the respondent got up, cooked breakfast and called him, which was at about six thirty or six forty-five o'clock. The deceased usually ate breakfast, but on this morning he only drank some coffee, and then lay down across the bed and remained there until his 'ride' came for him at about seven o'clock. Customarily, after getting up, he did not go back to bed after breakfast--that was something he had never done before since respondent had been married to him. When his 'ride' came for him, although it was noticeable that he was feeling bad, he got up, and with the assistance of the respondent, put on his coveralls and jacket, and went out. This was the last time rspondent saw the deceased alive.

All of the foregoing facts are reported form the testimony of the respondent; and we now quote from her testimony:

'Q. Mrs. Price, had your husband ever had an attack previously similar to what he had on the morning of his death? A. Yes, sir, very often he complained of shortness of breath and a hurting in his chest.

'Q. And you became worried about him? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And you were worried about him that morning? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And you advised him not to go to work? A. Everytime he would be sick I would ask him to stay off from work and I would take him to a doctor, but he was not a person to complain.

'Q. And you asked him not to go on this morning? A. I don't know, but I reckon I did. I always did.

'Q. Did you talk to Dr. Massoud? A. Yes, sir, he was the one who told me had had a heart condition.

'Q. He told you he had angina pectoris? A. I don't know whether he named it that or not, but he did say it was a heart condition.

'Q. You don't remember whether the doctor told you it was that or not? A. No, sir, I don't remember.

'Q. Mrs. Price, you say your husband had had previous attacks, heart attacks and with shortness of breath and so forth? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Had he ever had one as serious as on this particular morning? A. I don't think he had.

'Q. And therefore you were more particularly worried about him on that occasion than on other occasions, were you not? A. Yes, sir.'

We pause here to comment upon the complete frankness and fairness of the claimant-respondent. She is undoubtedly a good woman.

The deceased resided twenty miles from the place where he worked, and rode in an automobile with three other employees of the same company to and from his work. This is stated in explanation of the testimony of the respondent wherein she spoke of his 'ride' coming for him.

One witness, in speaking of the type of work in which the deceased was engaged, said he was a pipe fitter, while another witness said he was a plumber, but this is immaterial. Upon reaching his place of employment, having of course ridden approximately twenty miles thereto, it being Monday morning, the deceased first attended a safety meeting at 8 o'clock, the time at which he and the other employees usually commenced to work. These Monday morning safety meetings lasted from 10 to 15 minutes, and this particular meeting was over at 8:15 o'clock. From the meeting, the deceased and the others who were working beside him went to their tool box which was estimated as being 175 normal steps to 200 yards from where the meeting had been held, picked up their wrenches used in their work, put them on a truck, and walked to where they were going to work, a distance of about 250 steps. These wrenches weighted from 10 to 20 pounds apiece. Preliminary to the actual work where a pipe was being installed in a three foot ditch, skids had to be fetched from a pile located 30 or 40 steps from the ditch, and these employees had to procure same. In order to properly lay the pipe in the ditch, it was first placed on boards stretched across the ditch, being called skids. These skids varied in weight, from 12 to 22 pounds. Around the area where the deceased and others were working, a strand of rope was stretched about 3 feet from the ground as a safety precaution, and in bringing skids to the ditch, one would pass under this rope. At the time the deceased suffered the attack from which he died, apparently almost instantly, he probably was engaged in carrying a skid to the ditch, and as he reached the strand rope barrier, appeared to sit down, slowly recline, gasp once or twice, uttering a few words and died. This fatal attack occurred at about 8:50 A.M.

There was considerable diversity in the testimony as to whether the deceased had made just one trip to the skid pile or four or five, but evidently he had made more than one trip, when the length of time he had been on the job is considered, being known as a steady workman. However, this is more or less immaterial since he was engaged in his usual work and was not subject to any unusual strain. And it may here be mentioned that at the safety meeting which the deceased attended, only the usual occurred. There was no rush on the job on this particular morning, the day was a normal work day with no heavy work involved.

Bottomed upon the foregoing facts, although stated a little more favorably to respondent's case than is warranted by the record, hypothetical questions were propounded to Drs. Norman B. Edgerton, L. A. Hartzog and Aubrey D. Gantt, witnesses on behalf of the respondent, and in each instance the doctor replied that the cause of death was coronary thrombosis, and that the work in which the deceased was engaged on the morning of his death accelerated and contributed to such death. Dr. Edgerton later qualified his testimony by stating that any activity whatsoever on that morning lessened the chances of the...