Stanley v. Moan
Decision Date | 13 February 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 5415,5415 |
Citation | 71 Ariz. 359,227 P.2d 389 |
Parties | STANLEY v. MOAN et al. |
Court | Arizona 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.
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 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-
Fish v. Industrial Commission
...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.
...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
...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
...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 ......