Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ANDERSON, C.J.
• Citation: Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 217 Ala. 409, 116 So. 424 (Ala. 1928)
• Decision Date: 05 April 1928
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 23
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. KEEFE.

116 So. 424

217 Ala. 409

SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. KEEFE.

6 Div. 23

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 5, 1928

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Bessemer Division; J.C.B Gwin, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workermen's Compensation Act by Dennis Keefe against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company to recover compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer applies for certiorari to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County (Bessemer Division). Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.

Bradley Baldwin, All & White, S.M. Bronaugh, and W.M. Neal, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

This case has been before this court before, 216 Ala. 379, 113 So 400, when the writ was awarded and the cause reversed and remanded for a failure on the part of the plaintiff to show notice or knowledge of the injury within ninety days as required by the statute. Upon the second trial the trial court found for the plaintiff and found that he had given the superintendent notice.

In this class of cases we have held that the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed when there is evidence which will support the finding, meaning, of course, legal evidence. The trial court found that notice was given to the superintendent, but, as this notice was not in writing, it was not sufficient under sections 7568 and 7569 of the Code of 1923. True, we have held that even when the statute as to notice has not been complied with this will not preclude a recovery if it appears that the defendant had knowledge of the injury and of the substantial facts connected therewith. The knowledge relied upon, however, must be independent of the verbal notice of the injured employee, for to hold that such a notice would suffice to charge the employer with knowledge would emasculate that part of the statute by reading written notice to mean oral notice. American Radiator Co. v. Andino (Ala.Sup.) 116 So. 121.

The record failing to show written notice, the question arises Was there legal evidence sufficient to show such knowledge on the part of the employer as would dispense with the necessity of proving written notice? In the first place, it is insisted that the superintendent, to whom it is claimed the notice was given, was dead at the time of the trial, and, as he occupied a fiduciary position with the...