Sweatt v. Marlboro Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 24 July 1945
• Docket Number: 15757.
• Citation: 34 S.E.2d 762,206 S.C. 476
• Parties: SWEATT et al. v. MARLBORO COTTON MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

34 S.E.2d 762

206 S.C. 476

SWEATT et al. v. MARLBORO COTTON MILLS et al.

No. 15757.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 24, 1945

Stevenson & Lindsay, of Bennettsville, for appellants.

N.W. Edens, G. W. Freeman, Jr., J. E. Dudley, and Tison &amp Miller, all of Bennettsville, for respondents.

FISHBURNE Justice.

This was a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act Code 1942, § 7035-1 et seq., initiated by the widow and children of John Sweatt on account of his death, which occurred July 22, 1943. The claim was opposed by Marlboro Cotton Mills, employer, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurance carrier, who are appealing from the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming an award of the South Carolina Industrial Commission in favor of the widow, Macie Hendricks Sweatt, and Fannie Sweatt Brigman, a dependent daughter.

The employer and the insurance carrier resisted the claim on the ground that the death of John Sweatt was due to myocarditis and low blood pressure, from which he had been suffering for years. It was contended that the evidence failed to show any injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment but on the contrary showed that the employee's death was the natural and inevitable result of his pre-existing diseased condition, and would have occurred regardless of the employment.

For several years, the deceased had been suffering from myocarditis and low blood pressure. Four or five weeks previous to his death he had quit his work at the mill on account of his physical condition, and was resting at home. Two or three weeks of this time, he was confined to his bed. His death occurred on the first day he returned to the mill. He reported for work at 6 o'clock a. m., and suddenly collapsed, and died one hour later. The contention of appellants is that there is no substantial testimony in the record to show that he did any unusual or excessive work in the one hour of his employment on the day of his death.

The award of the hearing commissioner, affirmed by the full commission, was based upon the finding that 'on this morning it was extremely hot, and due to one of the machines having caught on fire the night before, the work at this particular time was greater than customary or usual, and required greater exertion and more stooping, the latter being particularly harmful to one in the condition of this employee. The machines had been speeded up, so the usual and customary work was steady and hard. The deceased died on the premises a few minutes after he fell.'

The testimony tends to show that a week or two prior to the return of the employee to his work at the mill, the drawing machines had been 'speeded up' so as to increase the output; and it is undisputed that one or more of the drawing frames at which he worked, had been on fire the night before. It appears that he was first engaged in cleaning up one of these machines, which required hard and unusual exertion, necessitating much stooping over and straightening up. After this, it may reasonably be inferred, he was engaged in operating one of the drawing frames, but owing to the fact that the machines were being run at a far faster rate than formerly, he was subjected to over-exertion.

One of the witnesses testified that the operating speed of the machines had been increased to such an extent that it required approximately twice as much work on the part of the deceased in operating it. Another witness, who was looking at the deceased when he collapsed, stated that he was 'working as hard as he could * * *, going up and down as...