Smith v. The Solvay Process Company
| Decision Date | 10 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,414 |
| Citation | 100 Kan. 40,163 P. 645 |
| Parties | CHARLES C. SMITH, Appellant, v. THE SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1917.
Appeal from Reno district court; FRANK F. PRIGG, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. COMPENSATION ACT--Claim for Injuries--When to be Made. Under the workmen's compensation act the failure to make a claim for compensation for an injury within three months after the accident is a bar to a recovery.
2. COMPENSATION ACT -- Notice of Injury -- When to be Given. The failure to give notice of the injury within ten days after the accident is not a bar if no prejudice to the employer results from the failure or if it was occasioned by mistake, incapacity, or other reasonable cause; but no such exceptions are made as to a failure to claim compensation within the prescribed time.
Carr W. Taylor, of Hutchinson, for the appellant.
C. M. Williams, of Hutchinson, for the appellee.
This was an action by Charles C. Smith against the Solvay Process Company to recover compensation for an injury to his eye. A demurrer to his petition was sustained and he appeals.
It was alleged that the defendant was operating under the provisions of the workmen's compensation act; that the injury was caused by a small piece of steel or rust penetrating his eye, which was soon thereafter removed by a physician; that at the time of the accident he informed the foreman of the defendant of his injury and the latter looked at the injured eye; that during a period from July 6, 1913, the date of the injury, till December 10, 1913, when a specialist informed plaintiff that that eye would be permanently blind, he did not think it was seriously injured, but that it troubled him considerably and his vision grew less clear during that time; and that he continued in the employ of defendant for thirty days after the injury and later secured employment elsewhere. It was further alleged that on December 12, 1913, a written notice was served upon defendant stating the extent of the injury, claiming compensation under the workmen's compensation act, and informing it that no notice other than the oral one given to the defendant's foreman had been given for the reason that plaintiff did not know the extent and ultimate effect of his injury until December 10, 1913, when he consulted the specialist.
In support of the ruling the defendant insists that the failure of plaintiff to give notice of the injury, or to make a claim for compensation within the time fixed by the compensation act, bars a recovery. That act provides that a recovery of compensation can not be had unless written notice of the accident shall be given within ten days after the accident nor unless a claim for compensation shall be made within three months after the accident, or in case of death, within six months...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landauer v. State Ind. Acc. Comm.
...P. 654; Rogers v. Joplin & P. Ry. Co., 115 Kan. 815, 225 P. 108; Whitby v. Armour & Co., 114 Kan. 445, 219 P. 253; Smith v. Solvay, Process Co., 100 Kan. 40, 163 P. 645. Maine: Rev. Stat. 1930, ch. 55, section 32; Thibodeau's Case, 135 Me. 312, 196 A. 87; The Garbouska Case, 124 Me. 404, 13......
-
Keehn v. Stapleton
... ... by Roy D. Keehn, as receiver of Central Mutual Insurance ... Company, of Chicago, against Tom Stapleton and against C. W ... Kelley to ... to which he has not been made a party by service of process ... Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; 1 ... Freeman on ... made parties to it. [Citing Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 ... How. (U.S.) 288, 14 L.Ed. 942; Supreme Council of ... Hurst v. Hammel, 153 Kan. 827, 113 P.2d ... 1045; Smith v. Solvay Process Co., 100 Kan. 40, 163 ... P. 645. See, also, Hornick v. First ... ...
-
Higgins v. Heine Boiler Co.
...Accident Comm., 104 Ore. 313, 317; Rezaldo v. Industrial Comm., 61 Utah 412, 417; Simmons v. Holcomb, 98 Conn. 770, 774; Smith v. Process Co., 100 Kan. 40, 42; v. Giusti Bros., 41 R. I. 122, 126; Duhrkopf v. Bennett, 108 Neb. 142, 144; Twonko v. Brass & Copper Co., 224 N.Y. 263, 269; Fideli......
-
Griffin v. Rustless Iron & Steel Co.
... ... Griffin, claimant, opposed by the Rustless Iron & Steel ... Company, employer and self-insurer, to recover compensation ... for injury to the ... Industrial ... Commission, 290 Ill. 436, 125 N.E. 369; Smith v ... Solvay Process Co., 100 Kan. 40, 163 P. 645; Murphy ... v. W ... ...