Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett
| Decision Date | 27 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 802 |
| Citation | 278 Ala. 108,176 So.2d 39 |
| Parties | TIGER MOTOR COMPANY, Inc. v. Audrey C. WINSLETT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Brown & McMillan, Opelika and Auburn, for appellant.
Walker & Hill, Opelika, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case (Code 1940, Tit. 26, § 253 et seq., as amended) brought here by certiorari on petition of the defendant below to review a judgment of the circuit court of Lee County awarding compensation to the employee.
Under the provisions of Title 26, § 262, Code 1940, 'injuries by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment' do not include 'an injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment * * *.'
The only controverted question in the instant case is whether the injuries suffered by plaintiff (Winslett)--wounds inflicted upon him by one A. C. Eason in the course of an assault and battery made by Eason with his fists on plaintiff, as shown by the findings of the trial court--arose out of plaintiff's employment, within the restrictive definition of § 262(j), as quoted above, and construed in connection with the legal meaning of § 253, Tit. 26, Code of 1940. Jett v. Turner, 215 Ala. 352, 110 So. 702(1)(2).
From the finding of facts made by the trial court, it appears that the plaintiff (Winslett) was employed by defendant, Tiger Motor Company, Inc., as a mechanic on September 19th and 20th, 1963, under agreement whereby 'he was paid 55% of one-half of the scheduled job price for servicing and repairing automobiles, published by the manufacturer and used by the defendant, being paid on Saturdays on pay rolls made on Fridays from preliminary or tentative pay rolls submitted late on Thursdays'; that 'plaintiff maintained his own stubs or 'hard board' records of the work he did'; that 'A. C. Eason was service manager for defendant'; that 'on Thursday afternoon September 19, 1963 there was a 'come back' 'transmission job' worked earlier that week by plaintiff, to be reworked; that when the preliminary or tentative pay roll sheet for that week was submitted to Mr. Winslett and he checked it against his stubs the 'come back' 'transmission job' was marked through; that plaintiff was dissatisfied with pay accorded him for a 'ring' or 'motor' job he had worked; plaintiff went to Eason and complained about the pay accorded him on the 'ring job' and Eason told plaintiff that the pay accorded for the 'ring job' was correct under the schedule of pay and he could approve no more but if Mr. Gunter, defendant's president and general manager, would pay him more it would be all right with Eason; that plaintiff admits the pay accorded for the 'ring job' was correct; that plaintiff told Eason that he would not work that cheap and would quit and come back the next day and get his tools; that thereupon Eason asked plaintiff what he was going to do about the 'come back' 'transmission job', and plaintiff said he would come back the next morning and work it; that plaintiff came back Friday, September 20, 1963, pulled the 'transmission job' automobile into his work stall, and got another employee, Ogletree, to help him take the transmission out and place it on his work bench; that without doing any work on the transmission, he left the defendant's place of business, and returned thereto between 10:30 and 11:30 that morning.'
That that 'he returned to the service shop to see Eason, who was not in, and plaintiff returned to his work bench and started working on the transmission job again; that in 15 to 20 minutes Eason returned and plaintiff went to Eason at his desk and asked if Eason had marked the job off his pay roll sheet; that Eason said he had; that plaintiff said to Eason that 'Since you done that you just pay me for pulling the transmission and disassembling it and I'll take my tools and go home'; that Eason, using a curse word, said he was not going to pay him anything; that plaintiff said, using a vulgar designation of himself, that he was not going to work for nothing; that plaintiff turned to go see Mr. Gunter, defendant's president, and Eason grabbed plaintiff and hit plaintiff on the forehead, with his fist, knocking plaintiff to the floor, and getting on plaintiff and hitting him some more; that plaintiff fell on his back and the rear pressure point of a spring metal hernia truss he was wearing injured his backbone. * * * At some point of his testimony on cross-examination, plaintiff admitted he had said he did not like Eason, and Eason did not like him, and that there was 'bad blood' between them.
That 'Defendant's version of the altercation, testified by Eason, is that when plaintiff came to Eason's desk at the time and place of the altercation, plaintiff with a curse word and criticism accused him of holding out pay on the transmission job and with threat of violence, by vulgar words and acts demanded pay now, and Eason told plaintiff he would get pay when he got through with the job, and that plaintiff then called Eason a _____ liar, and Eason his plaintiff, knocking him down, got down and continued to hit plaintiff several times.'
The court concluded that the plaintiff and defendant were subject to Workmen's Compensation Laws of Alabama, and that 'the plaintiff at the time of his injury suffered an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment,' and awarded compensation to the plaintiff in an amount that is not challenged by this review. Defendant does contend by assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that the injury suffered by plaintiff, Winslett, and inflicted by Eason, an employee of Tiger Motor Company, Inc., was an accident arising out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment.
The trial court further observed in its opinion, consonant with the decisions of this court, 'That the Workmen's Compensation Laws are special and remedial and to be construed and applied liberally to effect the beneficent purposes, and that reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of claimants * * *.'
We quoted in Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Harris, 218 Ala. 130, 117 So. 755, from Ex parte Coleman, 211 Ala. 248, 100 So. 114, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc.
...findings on appeal where there is "any substantial legal evidence" to support the findings of the trial court. Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett, 278 Ala. 108, 176 So.2d 39 (1965); Williams v. Tennessee Valley Butane Co., 265 Ala. 145, 90 So.2d 84 (1956); Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co., ......
-
Defense Ordinance Corp. v. England
...by legal evidence. Collins v. Central Foundry Co., 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 712; Pinto Island Metals Co. v. Edwards, Supra; Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett, 278 Ala. 108, 176 So.2d 39. However, if it plainly appears that the conclusions of the court were reached after consideration of large quantities ......
-
Ragland Brick Co. v. Campbell
...Compensation Act, it must be the result of an accident that arises out of and in the course of employment. Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett, 278 Ala. 108, 176 So.2d 39 (1965); Queen City Furniture Co. v. Hinds, 274 Ala. 584, 150 So.2d 756 (1963). It is undisputed that this accident occurred in t......
-
Williams v. Champion Intern. Corp., 94-D-1417-S.
...resolving all reasonable doubts in favor of the claimant. Riley v. Perkins, 282 Ala. 629, 213 So.2d 796 (1968); Tiger Motor Co. v. Winslett, 278 Ala. 108, 176 So.2d 39 (1965). Here, the facts and testimony presented by the parties are sharply disputed; therefore, the court finds that a genu......