Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe
| Decision Date | 15 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 895 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. KEEFE. |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Dennis Keefe, claimant, opposed by the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, employer. From a finding and judgment in favor of claimant, the employer brings certiorari. Writ granted and reversed and remanded.
Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, S.M. Bronaugh, and W.M. Neal, all of Birmingham, for petitioner.
Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for respondent.
Knowledge brought home to the employer within 90 days of the injury to the employee caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, or notice as prescribed by the statute, is an essential element of the employee's cause of action under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Code of 1923, §§ 7568, 7569; Ex parte Stith Coal Co., 213 Ala. 399, 104 So. 756; Ex parte Harper, 210 Ala. 134, 97 So. 140; Ex parte Big Four Coal Mining Co., 213 Ala. 305, 104 So. 764.
It is conceded that the notice prescribed by the statute was not given. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff is based on the conclusion or finding "that the plaintiff received an injury to his eye as a proximate result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment of which the defendant had knowledge." The statement of facts made by the trial court, and embraced in the judgment does not sustain the conclusion that the defendant had knowledge of the injury, nor does the conclusion of the court based on the evidence show that such knowledge was brought to the defendant within 90 days from the alleged injury, and, for these reasons, the judgment is erroneous, and must be reversed. Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 74, 99 So. 97.
Writ of certiorari granted, reversed, and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hearn v. U.S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co.
......489, 108 So. 379; Woodward. Iron Co. v. Bradford, supra; Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel &. Iron Co. (Greek's Case), 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458. . . Our. decisions are ...74, 99 So. 97;. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 216 Ala. 379, 113 So. 400; Martin v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron. Co., 216 Ala. 500, 113 So. ......
-
Newman v. Rice-Stix D.G. Co., 32294.
...Sawtell v. Stern Brothers & Co., 44 S.W. (2d) 264; Ex parte Big Four Mining Co., 104 So. 764; Sloss-Sheffield Steele & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 113 So. 400; Andrews v. Butler Mfg. Co., 172 N.Y. Supp. 405; Murphy's Case, 115 N.E. 40; Keystone Lime Co. v. Kabat, 121 Atl. 484; Bodah v. Coeur D'Aleue......
- Dulin v. Johnson
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Foote
...... must be determined on its own facts. . . We must. hold, as heretofore declared, that a mere verbal notice, no. more than a claim of accidental injury in course of. employment, is not actual knowledge within the meaning of the. law. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 217. Ala. 409, 116 So. 424; Id., 216 Ala. 379, 113 So. 400;. American Radiator Co. v. Andino, 217 Ala. 424, 116. So. 121; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Davis,. 226 Ala. 626, 148 So. 309; Ex parte Stith Coal Co. (Grimes v. Stith Coal Co.), 213 Ala. 399, 104 So. 756;. Alabama Marble Co. ......