Smith v. University of Idaho
Decision Date | 14 June 1946 |
Docket Number | 7264 |
Parties | SMITH v. UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO et al |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Appeal from Industrial Accident Board.
Affirmed.
Walter M. Oros, of Boise, for appellants.
The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the death of the deceased arose out of and in the course of her employment. Walker v. Hyde, 43 Idaho 625, 253 P 1104; Croy v. McFarland-Brown Lumber Co., 51 Idaho 32, 1 P.2d 189; Vaughn v. Robertson and Thomas, 54 Idaho 138, 29 P.2d 756; I.C.A. § 43-1001.
Where the evidence is as consistent with the absence, as with the existence of liability, the defendants should not be held liable. Swanson v. Wasson, 45 Idaho 309, 262 P. 147; Hawkins v. Bonner County, 46 Idaho 739, 271 P. 327.
In reviewing the hearings of the Industrial Accident Board upon questions whether the evidence sustains the findings of the Board, the Supreme Court will consider the competency relevancy, and materiality of the evidence according to the rules applicable to trials in court. In re Larson, 48 Idaho 136, 279 P. 1087; McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, 203 P. 1068.
Murray Estes, of Moscow, for respondent.
The injury and death of Mrs. Smith arose out of and in the course of her employment. Scrivner v. Franklin School District, 50 Idaho 77, 293 P. 666.
The State Insurance Fund, having contested the claim in this action without reasonable grounds, should be subjected to an assessment for the payment of respondent's attorneys' fees. Chapter 96, page 146, 1945 Idaho Session Laws.
This proceeding was commenced before the Industrial Accident Board by Richard O. Smith, as residuary legatee under the last will and testament of Ida M. Smith, deceased, against the University of Idaho, employer, and State Insurance Fund, surety, to recover medical and burial expenses incurred by the deceased's estate as the result of an accident and injury culminating in her death. It is alleged in claimant's petition that the death of Ida M. Smith was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with the University of Idaho. Both the employer and the surety denied said allegation. Briefly stated, the facts are substantially as follows:
During the afternoon of December 8, 1943, Ida M. Smith, who was employed by the University as hostess or housemother at Ridenbaugh Hall, a girl's dormitory located on the campus, accidentally slipped and fell on a sidewalk in the city of Moscow and, as a result of the fall, fractured the neck of the left femur. The accident occurred near the Gritman Hospital; she was carried into the hospital where she received medical attention by Dr. C. J. Klaaren. On the 10th of December, Dr. William Grieve and Dr. Klaaren reduced the fracture and pinned the femur. December 12th Mrs. Smith died. Dr. Klaaren testified that, in his opinion, the cause of her death was a cerebral hemorrhage.
From an award of the board in favor of claimant this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellants specify and rely upon five assignments of error. There is however but one question necessary to be determined, namely, Did the accident and injury resulting in the death of Ida M. Smith arise out of and in the course of her employment with the University of Idaho?
The board found the following facts, among others:
It may be conceded at the outset that the facts present a borderline case.
Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co., 133 Or. 468, 277 P. 91, 286 P. 527, 530, 291 P. 375. See, also, Hamlin v. University of Idaho, 61 Idaho 570, 104 P.2d 625; Olson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 62 Idaho 423, 112 P.2d 1005; Dawson v. Joe Chester A. L. Co., 62 Idaho 508, 112 P.2d 494; Long v. Brown, 64 Idaho 39, 128 P.2d 754; Dauphine v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 57 Cal.App.2d 949, 135 P.2d 644.
Mrs. Smith, at the time of the accident and injury and up to the time of her death, was in the employment of the University of Idaho at a stipulated amount per month, and was so employed at the time she purchased the coffee and Christmas tree ornaments.
The question therefore arises: Under the facts of this case did Mrs. Smith, employed 24 hours each day, interrupt her service so as to remove her from the protection of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1932, § 43-901 et seq?
Under the terms of her contract of employment with the university, Mrs. Smith was furnished all her meals at the expense of the university except her breakfast. She purchased food for her breakfast with her own funds and ate in her apartment in the hall; that it was necessary for her to purchase breakfast groceries and, in order to do so, it was incumbent upon her to go downtown. Conceding the purchase of the coffee was for her personal use, she had made the purchase, was on her way back to the hall when she accidentally fell on the public street, sustaining the injury from which she later died. Clearly she was doing what a person under like facts and circumstances, engaged in like employment may reasonably do, and would be expected to do, the doing of which would be incidental to and within the scope of her employment.
The rule would seem to be well established that an employee does not step aside from his employment and is without the protection of the statute when doing a reasonable and necessary act at the time and place to the end that the business of his employer may be properly conducted. Denials of awards for any period...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 38055
...470, 128 N.E. 711, 13 A.L.R. 522; Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 1945, 62 Ariz. 398, 158 P.2d 511; Smith v. University of Idaho, 1946, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404; Spencer v. Chesapeake Paperboard Co., 1946, 186 Md. 522, 47 A.2d 385; Dravo Corp. v. Strosnider, 1946, 4 Terry 256,......
-
Frank v. Bunker Hill Co.
...doubtful cases in favor of compensation. Sines v. Appel, 103 Idaho 9, 13, 644 P.2d 331, 335 (1982), quoting Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 26, 170 P.2d 404, 406 (1946). I do not believe that this policy is consistent with the majority's decision to castigate appellant for his la......
-
Grant v. Brownfield's Orthopedic and Prosthetic Co.
...School Dist. No. 411, 102 Idaho 439, 631 P.2d 610 (1981); Colson v. Steele, 73 Idaho 348, 252 P.2d 1049 (1953); Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404 (1946). The Idaho Constitution and previous decisions of this Court mandate that on appeal our review of Industrial Commiss......
-
Devlin v. Ennis
...64 Idaho 107, 127 P.2d 784. All reasonable inferences drawn by the triers of the facts will be sustained on review. Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404. In the case of Hudson v. Roberts, 75 Idaho 224, 229, 270 P.2d 837, 839, this court 'It may be stated as a general rule......