Stanley v. Moan

Decision Date13 February 1951
Docket NumberNo. 5415,5415
Citation71 Ariz. 359,227 P.2d 389
PartiesSTANLEY v. MOAN et al.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Robert A. May, Tucson, for Petitioner Ray Fisher Harris, Tucson, of counsel.

Robert E. Yount, Phoenix, for respondent Insurance Carrier H. S. McCluskey and Donald J. Morgan, Phoenix, of counsel.

UDALL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by certiorari brought by Pearl J. Stanley, petitioner, to review an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona, respondent insurance carrier, denying her compensation for an injury allegedly suffered by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment as a cook for J. V. Moan Commissary Company, respondent employer.

The uncontradicted facts show that petitioner, an obese 41-year-old woman, was hired as a cook for a signal crew operating out of the railroad station at Fairbank, Arizona, a small town in southeastern Arizona through which runs the Southern Pacific Railroad. She was hired in El Paso, Texas, by the manager of respondent employer who had a contract to supply meals for the railroad crews. Petitioner had been working for approximately two weeks in Fairbank when on August 15, 1950, at about 5:30 a.m., after arising to prepare breakfast and while attempting to descend the steps leading from the dining car to the ground, she fell or was thrown a distance of four or five feet to the ground, causing the injuries complained of. The petitioner testified, and it was not refuted, that the factors contributing to her fall were that (1) the steps were unlighted, (2) there was no handrail on one side of the steps, and (3) the vibration of the steps caused by a passing train. She further stated by affidavit that '* * * when she came to she was in a sitting position, sitting on her right leg and leaning against one side of the stairway; during the fall affiant was knocked unconscious and for how long she does not know. Affiant had great pain in her back and shoulders, lower spine, and her right leg, right ankle and abdomen.' There were no eye witnesses to the accident.

Paul T. Long, new foreman of the signal crew, who had arrived on the morning of the accident, reported it by telephone to defendant employer in El Paso on August 17. On the same date petitioner was relieved of her duties and returned to El Paso where her home was. She also immediately reported the accident to her employer, who sent her to the hospital where she received extended treatment for her injuries.

No worthwhile purpose would be served in further detailing the evidence upon which petitioner relies to establish her claim. The evidence, some of which was admittedly hearsay, submitted to the commission concerning the fact that petitioner did sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment, consists of the affidavits and statements of petitioner, her employer, attending physicians, and other witnesses who were completely disinterested. The only evidence upon which the commission could have based its award denying compensation to peti...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Fish v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1970
    ...a rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action by the court. In re Gary's Estate, 69 Ariz. 228, 211 P.2d 815; Stanley v. Moan, 71 Ariz. 359, 227 P.2d 389.' 74 Ariz. at 349 and 350, 248 P.2d at 998 and 999 A statement of like import is found in Buzard v. Griffin, (supra): 'In this ......
  • Reliable Elec. Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1969
    ...the court which casts suspicion or created doubt concerning the testimony of the interested party. As stated in Stanley v. Moan, 71 Ariz. 359, 361, 227 P.2d 389, 391 (1951): 'While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested witness, it likewise is the law th......
  • Russell v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1965
    ...a rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action by the court. In re Gary's Estate, 69 Ariz. 228, 211 P.2d 815; Stanley v. Moan, 71 Ariz. 359, 227 P.2d 389.' 74 Ariz. at 349, 248 P.2d at The evidence of the accidents and injuries as related by the witnesses in the instant case was n......
  • Helton v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1959
    ...unless they manifestly appear arbitrary. While the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard the only reasonable inference, Stanley v. Moan, 71 Ariz. 359, 227 P.2d 389, there are here admittedly other inferences which might be The award is affirmed. PHELPS, C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, UDALL and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT