Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Ingle

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GARDNER, J.
• Citation: Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Ingle, 223 Ala. 127, 134 So. 878 (Ala. 1931)
• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 867.
• Parties: REPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO. v. INGLE.

134 So. 878

223 Ala. 127

REPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO. v. INGLE.

6 Div. 867.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1931

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workman's Compensation Act by Addie Ingle against the Republic Iron & Steel Company, to recover compensation on account of the death of an employee. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer brings certiorari.

Writ denied; affirmed.

Benners Burr, McKamy & Forman, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Windham & Countryman, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

By this proceeding the widow of Albert Ingle seeks recovery for his death under our Workmen's Compensation Statute. Code 1923, § 7543, et seq. Ingle was night watchman and special police officer at defendant's camp, having been appointed a special deputy sheriff upon defendant's request. He was killed on the night of August 3, 1930, while on duty as a watchman at the camp, having been shot with a pistol by some unidentified person. That his death was the result of an accident within the meaning of our Compensation Statute is well established, and not here questioned. Garrett v Gadsden Cooperage Co., 209 Ala. 223, 96 So. 188, 190; Ex parte Coleman, 211 Ala. 248, 100 So. 114, 115; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Harris, 218 Ala. 130, 117 So. 755.

But it is strenuously insisted that the accident was not one arising out of and in the course of the employment. The burden of proof in this respect was upon the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the injury occur in the course of the employment. It must also arise out of the employment. Jones v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 221 Ala. 547, 130 So. 74; Ex parte Little Cahaba Coal Co., 213 Ala. 244, 104 So. 422; Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Jones, 220 Ala. 10, 123 So. 201.

Decedent met his death while on duty as night watchman of defendant, and that the accident was one arising in the course of his employment is established without dispute. Did it arise out of the employment is the pivotal question in the case. The solution of questions of this character must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, as no exact formula can be laid down which will automatically solve every case. Prayther v. Deepwater Coal & Iron Co., 216 Ala. 579, 114 So. 194.

A review of the trial court's ruling awarding compensation is here sought by bill of exceptions containing the evidence upon which the cause was tried with exception of a number of photographs of the locus in quo, which were examined by the court with the aid of counsel for the respective parties, and to which some of the witnesses referred in giving their testimony, and which do not appear in the record. While these photographs doubtless offered some aid, we attach no great importance to their omission in view of the fully developed evidence in the cause. Nor are we concerned with conflicts which appear in the proof, as we are not called upon to determine the weight of the evidence. It has been settled by our decisions that if, on any reasonable view of the evidence, it will support the conclusion reached in the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Or, to state the matter differently, and in the language of Ex parte Coleman, supra: "Where there is any substantial legal evidence in support of the finding of the trial court, the judgment, whether affirmative or negative, will not be disturbed on appeal." And upon the necessity of showing that the injury arose out of the employment, it is likewise the settled rule that to "justify recovery 'The rational mind must be able to trace the resultant personal injury to a proximate cause set in motion by the employment, and not by some other agency.' *** 'Not that the injury must be one which ought to have been foreseen, but it must be one which, after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in the nature of the employment." ' Garrett v. Gadsden Cooperage Co., supra.

A brief reference to some of the salient features of the evidence will suffice, we think, to demonstrate the correctness of the ruling of the court below. Decedent's position as night watchman and special officer for defendant served to expose him to peculiar hazards. Dean v. Stockham Pipe Co., 220 Ala. 25, 123 So. 225; McLaughlin v. Davis Lumber Co., 220 Ala. 440, 125 So. 608. Decedent's hours were from 6 p. m. to 6 a. m. He lived just across the street from the defendant's commissary, and just opposite the house occupied by defendant's superintendent. It was his duty to make the "rounds" and "punch the clock" every hour. On the night he was killed, decedent having just completed his round and punched the clock, came across the superintendent's yard, turned on a light at the corner house, and came back to sit down on his doorstep. While sitting there, as h...