Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watts

• Decision Date: 23 June 1938
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 241.
• Citation: 184 So. 201,236 Ala. 636
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WATTS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

184 So. 201

236 Ala. 636

SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WATTS ET AL.

6 Div. 241.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 23, 1938

Rehearing Granted Oct. 20, 1938.

Further Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1938.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Gardner Goodwyn, Judge.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by Alice Watts and others against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer brings certiorari.

Reversed and remanded on rehearing.

Bradley Baldwin, All & White and Kingman C. Shelburne, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Mayfield & Mayfield, of Tuscaloosa, for appellees.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

Action by the plaintiff for compensation for herself and dependent children under the "Workmen's Compensation Act", Code 1923, § 7534 et seq., for the death of her husband, an employe of the defendant.

While technical rules as to pleading are not required in actions of this charter, the present complaint should have more accurately charged that the "Plaintiff's intestate", instead of the "plaintiff", was employed, injured, etc., yet, considering the complaint in its entirety, the only reasonable meaning of same is that the plaintiff's intestate, her husband, was employed injured, etc. This defect was amendable and we find no ground of demurrer that specifically raised the point. Moreover, the record discloses that the case throughout was tried upon the sole theory that the action was for the death of plaintiff's husband who was employed by the defendant and who was injured in the course of his employment. We think this a proper case for the application of Rule 45.

True the statute requires written notice of the injury and the facts connected therewith and which does not appear to have been given, but it has been uniformly held that it is not a condition precedent if it appears that the employer had independent knowledge of same. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 217 Ala. 409, 116 So. 424. Nor will this court disturb the finding of the trial court if there is any evidence tending to show knowledge. American Radiator Co. v. Andino, 217 Ala. 424, 116 So. 121. We think there was evidence to support the holding of the trial court, that the defendant had knowledge of the accident, independent of written notice from the plaintiff. Foster, who seems to have had some direction or superintendence over the intestate and who ordered him to go where he was injured, saw him immediately after he was hurt. But, conceding that this of itself did not suffice, it appears that Harper, the superintendent, had acquired knowledge of the injury and procured a statement from an eye witness to the accident.

We also think that the evidence afforded a reasonable inference to support the finding of the trial court that the injury sustained by the intestate proximately caused "tetanus" or lockjaw which resulted in his death. If there is evidence supporting the trial court upon the conclusion as to the facts, this court will not, upon certiorari, disturb said conclusion as the weight of the evidence was within the province of the trial court. Hearn v. United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co., 217 Ala. 352, 116 So. 365; Hardisty v. Woodward Iron Co., 214 Ala. 256, 107 So. 837; Paramount Coal Co. v. Williams, 214 Ala. 394, 108 So. 7.

The writ is denied and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

BOULDIN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Upon Rehearing.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

Movant challenges the accurancy of our holding that the defendant had actual knowledge of the accident and injury and which dispensed with the necessity of a written notice. We...