Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Davidson
Decision Date | 19 June 1926 |
Docket Number | (No. 11608.) |
Citation | 288 S.W. 471 |
Parties | TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INS. ASS'N v. DAVIDSON et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
Suit by T. L. Davidson and others against the Texas Employers' Insurance Association, to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board, and recover compensation under provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lawther, Pope, Leachman & Lawther, of Dallas, for appellant.
Engleking & Dotson, of Electra, for appellees.
This was a suit by appellee T. L. Davidson in the district court of Wichita county, to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board and recover compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Appellee claimed to have been injured in the employment of the American Refining Company and while helping to carry some joints of pipe. In his petition he alleged that his muscles and tendons in his side, back, and body were strained, and that a tendon or muscle in his side was broken; that his side, back, and lungs were greatly injured by reason of lifting said joint of pipe; that a tumor was caused to form on plaintiff's side, as a reason of which his health was broken and he was rendered unable to work; that he suffered pain in his sides and body and in his lungs, etc. Appellant answered by a general demurrer and certain special exceptions and a general denial. The cause was submitted to a jury upon special issues, and such issues and the answers thereto are as follows:
The following special issues were given at the request of the defendant:
At the special request of the plaintiff, the court instructed the jury as follows:
Upon the request of plaintiff, the court further submitted the following special issue, with instructions:
Upon the request of the defendant, the following special issue was submitted:
Upon the answers of the jury, the court rendered judgment for plaintiff for $15.57 a week for a term of 401 weeks, making a total compensation for his injuries of the sum of $6,243.57, less a credit of $31.50, which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, leaving yet unpaid the sum of $6,212.07. It further appearing to the court that 63 of said weekly installments of compensation had matured at the time of the trial, judgment for said amount, or $980.91, less $31.50 already paid, leaving $949.41 then due, was rendered for plaintiff against defendant. Judgment for 338 weekly installments of $15.57 was awarded plaintiff against defendant. One-third of the amount awarded plaintiff was ordered to be paid to his attorneys. From this judgment the defendant has appealed.
Opinion.Under its first assignment, the appellant urges that, to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the injury to the employee must be a damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom. He urges that the evidence does not show that any injury to the structure of the body was suffered by appellee in the course of his employment, and that, therefore, any judgment against the appellant was not authorized. The Employer's Liability Act, as amended by the 35th Legislature (1917) c. 103, pt. 4, § 1, subd. 5, says:
"The words `injury' or `personal injury,' as used in this act, shall be construed to mean damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom."
The evidence tends to show in this case that, while appellant was at work helping to lift and carry a line of pipe from one place to another, he experienced severe pains on each side and in his chest; that the pains were very severe, and he was forced to lie down and rest that afternoon; that these pains have continued since said time until the day of the trial, at least when he was standing up or attempting to do any work; that, when he was lying down, or in the morning when he got up, he often felt all right, but, when he attempted to work or to exert himself in any way, the pains returned. We think that this testimony is sufficient to show circumstantially that, by the lifting, some disarrangement of some of the organs or some lesion occurred, which caused the pain suffered. The pains are only the evidence of the cause producing them.
There are several assignments of error directed to the admission of certain testimony of witnesses to whom it is claimed the appellee made statements concerning pain suffered by him after the injury. This evidence objected to, and the witnesses who testified, the questions asked the witnesses, and the answers thereto, are hereinafter stated:
Mrs. Rosa Pryor, at whose house appellee roomed at the time of the injury, was asked: "Did you ever hear him complain of pains in his body or chest or anything like that?" The witness answered: "He said his side pained him and complained lots of times with his side." E. D. Pryor, the brother-in-law of the last witness, was asked: "State whether or not at that time he complained of having pains in his side, or chest or anything like that." The witness answered: "I don't remember what he said, only he complained his side was hurting." Witness C. H. Mowery was asked: "What has he said with reference to being unable to work?" He answered: "He complained with his side hurting around this way and of being overdone." Witness D. Armstrong was asked: "State whether or not you have heard him make any complaint of physical pain, or his health, or anything of that kind since April, 1924." Witness answered: "Well, last fall, when he came up there to my place, he was complaining of his side." W. A. Beck, who was a barber, was asked: "Just tell the jury whether or not he ever complained of pain, bodily pain, or anything like that the times he has been in your shop since April 13, 1924." He answered: "Yes." Question: The witness answered: I. James was asked: "Tell the jury whether or not he complained of any pains in his side or anything like that." Answer: "Yes, sir; he did." Question: "What did he say with reference to it?" Answer: "He just said he thought there was something pulled loose in his side." Question: "State whether he made any complaints with reference to his health or pains during all that time." Answer: "Yes, sir; he did."
Ordinarily, expressions of pain are admissible to show the existence of said pain, whether such expressions are merely explanations, groans, or verbal statements, upon the theory that they are but involuntary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas State Highway Department v. Butler
...49 S.W.2d 943, writ dismissed; Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Owens, Tex.Civ. App., 198 S.W. 662; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 471; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 1008; Southern Casualty Co. v. Hernandez, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 544; Maryland Casualty Co. v. ......
-
Republic Underwriters v. Howard, 1203.
...testimony, the burden is on the one seeking to introduce the testimony to show that it was admissible. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 288 S. W. 471, 475. In the above state of this record, we do not believe that the bill shows error. The effect of the acceptance of a qua......
-
Southern Underwriters v. Hoopes
...Surety Co. v. Owens, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S. W. 662; Norwich Co. v. Smith, Tex.Com. App., 12 S.W.2d 558; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 471; Jones Evidence (Third Edition) secs. 370 and 372; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 867; Texas Employ......
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Nettles
...are admissible in this character of cases. Railway Co. v. Love (Tex. Civ. App.) 169 S. W. 922, writ refused; Texas Employers Ass'n v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 288 S. W. 471; Wheeler v. Tyler Southeastern Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 356, 43 S. W. 876; Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) vol. 3, § Under its s......