Reynolds Metals Co. v. Gray

Decision Date15 July 1965
Docket Number8 Div. 184
Citation178 So.2d 87,278 Ala. 309
PartiesREYNOLDS METALS COMPANY v. Clara Mae GRAY et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Almon & McAlister, Sheffield, for appellant.

Howell T. Heflin, Tuscumbia, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case brought by the widow and dependent child of McKinley Gray, deceased. The trial court made the following findings here pertinent:

'The deceased, McKinley Gray, was employed by the defendant, Reynolds Metals Company, a corporation, and his job was a furnace helper on the day of said heart attack; that on the day he suffered said heart attack the Court finds that his employment required rather strenuous activity on the part of the deceased during the time of his employment; that he lifted approximately 8 or 10 slabs or blocks of magnesium, weighing from 40 to 50 pounds, from the floor to the door of the furnace a short time before he suffered his heart attack; that the deceased did strenuous work in fluxing a furnace and stirring molten metal with a rake, as well as other vigorous and strenuous tasks; that his average weekly earnings were $100.00 a week;

'That on November 10 [sic, 19], 1961 that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that on said day they were subject to the provisions of the workmen [sic] compensation laws of Alabama;

'That on said day while so employed by the defendant at its plant at Lister Hill, Colbert County, Alabama, the deceased suffered an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment while doing strenuous work, which included, but not limited to, the lifting of blocks of magnesium and fluxing of a furnace and raking molten metal with a heavy rake, and as a proximate result and consequence of said accident he suffered a heart attack from which he died on November 20, 1961 at the Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital in Florence, Alabama;

* * *

* * *

'The Court, therefore, concludes as follows:

'That the said McKinley Gray died as a proximate result of a heart attack on November 20, 1961, which said heart attack was proximately caused by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant on November 19, 1961, and that the facts concerning the decedent's death and accident bring his said death and accident within the court approved definition of accident and proximate cause;

'That the circumstantial evidence concerning said accident and the death of the said McKinley Gray, along with the medical testimony was sufficient to establish that his death and accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant; * * *.'

From this finding Reynolds seeks a review. The only issue which separates the parties is whether the cause of death of McKinley Gray was an accident within the meaning of our workmen's compensation statute. Title 26, § 253, Code.

Our review is limited as follows:

"On certiorari to review judgments in compensation cases, this court will not look to the weight of the evidence as to any fact found by the trial court, but simply to see if there is any evidence to support facts found by the trial court, and this rule applies when the award or compensation is denied as well as where there has been a judgment favorable to the plaintiff. Our review here on certiorari is confined to questions of law apparent upon the face of the record. * * *

"Where testimony is conflicting, but there is testimony supporting the finding of the trial court in proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, such finding is conclusive. * * *' Bass v. Cowikee Mills, 259 Ala. 391, 393, 67 So.2d 12, 13.' Cited in Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Wynn, 266 Ala. 327, 96 So.2d 159.

This principle clearly indicates that we must construe the facts favorably to the employee in this case, where the evidence allows such a construction, '* * * which is to say, that 'if there is any legal evidence on any reasonable view, or reasonable inference therefrom, that supports the facts found and conclusion announced by the court, it is sufficient under the statute, and the judgment rendered will not be disturbed.'' W. T. Smith Lumber Co. v. Raines, 271 Ala. 671, 127 So.2d 619.

With this predicate we turn to the record. Is there any evidence to support the findings set out above? Clearly there is. A co-worker of the deceased testified that the deceased picked up and put into the furnace eight or ten pieces of magnesium which weighed fifty pounds each, that they were heavy, that they weighed collectively in the neighborhood...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1996
    ...of compensating employees for accidents that arise out of and in the course of their employment. 2 See, e.g., Reynolds Metals Co. v. Gray, 278 Ala. 309, 178 So.2d 87 (1965). Section 25-5-31, Ala.Code 1975, "When personal injury ... is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and ......
  • T and T Loveland Chinchilla Ranch v. Bourn, 24275
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1970
    ...The breakdown of the decisions in these six states appears to be as follows: Two do not require overexertion. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Gray, 278 Ala. 309, 178 So.2d 87 (1965); Klein v. Howard Motors, Inc., 192 So.2d 205 (La. (App.) 1966). In two overexertion is required. Victor Wine and Liquo......
  • Magouirk v. United Parcel Service
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 2, 1986
    ...construction of the term. See, e.g., Kane, supra (heart attack caused by gradual inhalation of paint fumes); Reynolds Metal Company v. Gray, 278 Ala. 309, 178 So.2d 87 (1965) (heart attack compensable even though no external traumatic injury or unusual strain shown); Martin Industries, Inc.......
  • Malone v. Steelcase, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 20, 2013
    ...92–537, § 1, Ala. Acts 1992; see also Haggard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 423 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (citing Reynolds Metals Co. v. Gray, 278 Ala. 309, 178 So.2d 87 (1965)) (same). Steelcase agrees that the Act is to be liberally construed, but it argues that the interpretation of the Act......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT