Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Staggs
| Decision Date | 03 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 1789-7317.,1789-7317. |
| Citation | 134 S.W.2d 1026 |
| Parties | TEXAS INDEMNITY INS. CO. v. STAGGS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The Court of Civil Appeals has combined in one instrument the certification of the question of law to be decided and its tentative opinion on the question certified. We are authorized by the court to direct attention to the fact that Rule 15 for the Supreme Court, as rewritten December 9, 1936 (126 Texas v, 99 S.W.2d xxix) contemplates and intends, when a question of law is certified under Article 1851 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, the preparation and transmission of a tentative opinion separate and distinct from the certificate, which certificate should submit the question or questions of law to be decided with such statement of the nature of the case and of the material facts as may be necessary for the decision of the said question or questions.
The material facts gathered from the certificate and tentative opinion are as follows: H. T. Staggs was an employee of Skelly Oil Company, insured by plaintiff in error Texas Indemnity Insurance Company under the Workmen's Compensation Law, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq. His duties were to supervise and repair engines in the company's pumping plant, which was situated about five or six miles from the town of Burkburnett. He lived on the company's property a short distance from the plant and was required to be in and out of the pumping plant and to keep the engines working properly for twenty-four hours a day. Staggs worked nearly all night on October 31, 1935, endeavoring to repair one of the engines and returned to his home about 8 o'clock on the morning of November 1. After eating breakfast with his family he started to go back to the pumping plant to complete his work, fell while descending the steps of his home and struck his head on a concrete block near the steps. He went on to the pumping plant, however, and about 9:30 o'clock engaged in a telephone conversation with the superintendent of the Skelly Company, who gave him instructions that called for a reply. Staggs made no reply and about fifteen minutes after the end of the telephone conversation the superintendent sent a man to investigate. Staggs was found dead, lying on the floor of the office of the pumping plant.
The suit was brought by the surviving wife in behalf of herself and minor children for recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The petition alleges the facts above set out as to the fall and further that the exhaust pipe of one of the engines in the pumping plant leaked, causing great quantities of carbon-monoxide gas to accumulate in the building, and that Staggs was compelled to inhale the gas while he worked. Then follows this allegation: "And the plaintiffs allege that said fall and the inhalation of the carbon-monoxide gas, both and each, caused and contributed to the death of the said H. T. Staggs".
A physician, who performed an autopsy at the request of plaintiff in error, testified that the death of Staggs was due to cerebral hemorrhage caused by the rupture of the carotid artery and that the rupture resulted from high blood pressure, sclerosis of the blood vessel and degeneration of the brain tissue surrounding the blood vessel, which condition, in his opinion, might have existed for months or years. A physician who testified for defendants in error expressed an opinion which the Court of Civil Appeals found sufficient to support the jury's finding that the injury suffered by Staggs in the fall caused his death.
The jury made, among others, the following findings in answer to special issues:
In submitting the special issues the court thus instructed the jury as to the meaning of "producing cause": "You are instructed that the term `producing cause' as used in this charge, is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, produces the death in issue, and without which the death would not have occurred."
On the jury's answers to the special issues above set out, and answers to other issues not material to the question certified, judgment was rendered in favor of defendants in error against plaintiff in error for the sum of $20 per week for 360 consecutive weeks.
The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that there is no evidence to support the jury's answers to issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7 above set out by which it found that Staggs inhaled carbon-monoxide gas, that he sustained accidental injury in the inhalation of the gas, and that such injury was a producing cause of his death; and counsel for defendants in error has conceded the correctness of that conclusion. The Court of Civil Appeals expressed in the certificate and tentative opinion the further conclusion that there is evidence reasonably supporting the jury's answers to issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 above set out by which it found that Staggs fell while descending the steps of his home, that in so falling he sustained accidental injury to his head, that such injury was a producing cause of his death, and that the injury was sustained in the course of his employment.
The question certified for decision is as follows: "Were the findings of the jury, in answer to special issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, sufficient, of themselves, to support the judgment rendered awarding plaintiffs compensation for the death of Staggs, independently of further findings in answer to special issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which had no sufficient support in the evidence adduced?"
Plaintiff in error takes the position that judgment for compensation cannot be rendered unless the evidence sustains both the finding that the injury to the head was a producing cause of death and also the finding that carbon-monoxide poisoning was a producing cause of death; while the contention of defendants in error is that it is immaterial that the evidence does not support the finding as to injury from gas, it being sufficient if there is evidence sustaining the finding that the injury to the head produced death.
There is nothing in the compensation law indicating that an injury suffered by an employee in the course of his employment, to be compensable, must be the sole cause of disability or death or that compensation is to be denied when an injury in the course of the employment causes disability or death not of itself but concurrently with another injury or cause. The statute provides in general terms that an employee who is injured in the course of his employment shall be paid compensation and that if death results from the injury compensation shall be paid to the legal beneficiaries of the deceased employee. Sections 3b and 8 of Article 8306, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925.
It is well settled that in a suit under the compensation law it is not necessary for the claimant to show that the injury proximately caused disability or death. Recovery is authorized if a causal connection is established between the injury and the disability or death. "Producing cause" is the term most frequently used in compensation cases. Sometimes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Arline
...in bringing about the disability, something without which the disability, would not have occurred. Thus, in Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Staggs, 134 Tex. 318, 134 S.W.2d 1026, the Commission of Appeals held that the injury need only be one of several causes, as distinguished from the sole ca......
-
Insurance Company of North America v. Myers
...150 Tex. 460, 242 S.W.2d 172 (1951); Garcia v. Texas Indem. Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 413, 209 S.W.2d 333 (1948); Texas Indem. Ins. Co. v. Staggs, 134 Tex. 318, 134 S.W.2d 1026 (1940); Guzman v. Maryland Casualty Co., 130 Tex. 62, 107 S.W.2d 356 (1937); Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Parr, 30 S.W.......
-
Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc.
...an "unbroken causal connection" between the misrepresentation to Mrs. Coe and her grandsons' injuries. See Texas Indem. Ins. Co. v. Staggs, 134 Tex. 318, 134 S.W.2d 1026, 1030 (1940). In this case, notwithstanding our perspective on the evidence in favor of the plaintiffs, we conclude that ......
-
Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
...cases are in substance the same, except that there is added to the definition of proximate cause the element of foreseeableness.” Staggs, 134 S.W.2d at 1028–29. In other words, the producing cause inquiry is conceptually identical to that of cause in fact. We have recognized this in Decepti......