Ritchie v. Indiana State Highway Comm'n

• Decision Date: 06 November 1935
• Docket Number: No. 15483.,15483.
• Citation: 198 N.E. 125,101 Ind.App. 32
• Parties: RITCHIE et al. v. INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

101 Ind.App. 32

198 N.E. 125

RITCHIE et al.

v.INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al.

No. 15483.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Nov. 6, 1935.

Appeal from the Industrial Board.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Lilly M. Ritchie and others for the death of Ray Ritchie, claimants, opposed by the Indiana State Highway Commission, employer, and the State of Indiana. From an order of the Industrial Board denying compensation, the claimants appeal.

Reversed, with instructions.

Connor D. Ross, of Indianapolis, for appellants.

Philip Lutz, Jr., of Boonville, and James D. Sturgis, of Indianapolis, for appellees.

BRIDWELL, Judge.

This is an appeal from an award made by the full Industrial Board of Indiana, denying compensation to appellants as alleged dependents of one Ray Ritchie, deceased, who, on June 19, 1933, was injured by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by appellees, and died as a result of said injury on June 27, 1933.

Appellants assign as error that said award is contrary to law, and this assignment is sufficient to present for review the questions which are in controversy.

In its finding the board found as facts that the deceased, Ray Ritchie, was nineteen years old; that on June 19, 1933, he was in the employ of appellees at an average weekly wage of $14.40; that on said date he suffered an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which caused his death on June 27, 1933; that appellees had knowledge of said accidental injury and death, but did not furnish the necessary medical, surgical, hospital, and nurse's service, nor pay the $100 statutory burial expense; that at the time of said accidental injury none of the appellants herein were either wholly or partially dependent upon the said deceased for support. The award made was in accordance with the finding.

It is contended by appellants that the evidence in this case as to dependency is undisputed, and is such as to entitle them to an award of compensation; that the board in denying compensation ignored this evidence, and failed to recognize and give heed to the spirit and purpose of our Workmen's Compensation Law (Burns' Ann. St. 1933, § 40-1201 et seq.).

Appellees, on the other hand, insist that the record is silent as to material facts necessary to be established before any award could be legally made to appellants, and assert that there is no evidence showing the amount of any contributions made by the deceased or the value of his labor to appellants during any period of time prior to the date of the accident, and that in the absence of any evidence of this character, the award should be affirmed.

[1] The finding of the board, in so far as it relates to the employment, the average weekly wage, the injury, its cause, and the result thereof, is supported by the evidence and is such as would have entitled the deceased employee to an award of compensation had disability or impairment resulted from the injury instead of death, and this being true, it follows that the award, in so far as it granted medical, etc., expenses, and the statutory amount provided for burial expenses, is not contrary to law but in accordance therewith.

The evidence bearing on the question of dependency is not conflicting, and establishes the following facts to be true: The deceased employee was nineteen years old at the time of the accident, and began working for appellees on the day he was injured. Previous to that time, he had occasionally worked for some neighbor a day now and then, and had always turned over to his mother, for use in support of the family of which he was a member, such wages as he earned, and that it was expected he would turn over such money as he might earn in working for the appellees to be used for the same purpose. The family consisted of his father, appellant Frank L. Ritchie, fifty-seven years old, who for eleven years had been an invalid unable to work; his mother, Lilly M. Ritchie, fifty-four years old; three sisters, appellants Gladys Faye Ritchie, sixteen years old, and Orpha Lee Ritchie, twelve years old, and Ruth Ritchie, who was of legal age and had been teaching school for two or three years. The parents of the deceased owned a farm upon which the family resided, and the deceased, from the time he was a small boy until he started working for appellees worked upon said farm, and, for a period of at least two years immediately prior to his said injury, farmed the tillable land, the crops raised thereon being utilized by the family, and such family receiving all benefits of his labor, the parents relying upon the deceased to operate such farm. There is also evidence to prove that his sister Ruth, at times, made some contribution towards the maintenance of the family, and that the father received approximately $31 per month compensation which was used towards supporting the family; that it required all the products raised on the farm, together with the compensation paid to the father, and the contributions received from Ruth, and such assistance as was given by the mother and the two minor daughters in the way of labor performed, to support said family. It also appears that a small amount of money was borrowed prior to the decedent's death and used in the support of the family.

The farm upon which the family resided contained 104 acres, about one-half of it being tillable, but there was no evidence as to its value, or as to the value of the crops raised...