U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Colo.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 16385,16385 |
| Citation | 219 P.2d 315,122 Colo. 31 |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al. |
Darwin D. Coit, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
John W. Metzger, Attorney General, Allen Moore, Deputy Attorney General, Donald C. McKinlay, Assistant Attorney General, John F. Mueller, Gregory A. Mueller, Denver, for defendants in error.
This is a workmen's compensation case in which claimant was awarded compensation by the Industrial Commission for injuries incurred by him as a result of an accident allegedly arising out of and in the course of his employment. The award was sustained by the trial court and the employers and their insurer seek reversal hereupon the ground, among others, that 'there was no evidence showing that the claimant sustained any injury proximately caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment * * *.'
At the hearing before a referee of the commission, if appeared without dispute that claimant, while employed as a sightseeing driver for the employers, made a trip with tourist passengers, intending to go to Mount Evans. The party paused at Lookout Mountain, obviously to give the passengers an opportunity to observe the Buffalo Bill museum and grave. While one side of the hood of the automobile was raised and claimant was attempting to cool the motor by pouring cold water upon the radiator thereof, a fire broke out near the carburetor of the motor, causing an explosion sufficient to blow the other side of the hood open. The car was not provided with fire extinguishing equipment and claimant hastily proceeded to scoop up and carry dirt in a gallon can a distance of twenty-five or thirty feet which he dumped upon the motor for the purpose of extinguishing the fire, all of which required approximately ten minutes.
Shortly thereafter, claimant reported the matter to his employers, and asked that another vehicle be sent to transport the passengers on their trip. After waiting about two hours for a relief car to arrive, claimant again called his employers in Denver and was advised that the relief car was on its way and should arrive soon. Subsequently, and while talking to tourists at the soda fountain, claimant suffered a heart attack and was taken to Denver General Hospital where he remained for about three weeks.
At the hearing before the referee five doctors were called as witnesses, three of whom testified on behalf of claimant, the other two being called by his exployers. All of said expert witnesses were in substantial agreement that claimant suffered a myocardial infarction due to coronary occlusion. The question here presented is, Was their any causal connection shown to exist between the exertion and excitement attending the extinguishing of the fire and the heart attack which followed two hours later?
Dr. David Berger, called by claimant, expressed the opinion that 'the excitement may have been a precipitating factor.' Dr. Reginald H. Fritz, claimant's witness, said: 'I don't know,' in answer to a question as to whether or not the excitement had anything to do with the heart attack. Dr. W. S. Dennis, claimant's other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramirez, Case No. 06SC71 (Colo. 4/16/2007)
...of "mere possibilities of a fact having occurred" is not sufficient to support a judgment, citing Baeza and the cases cited therein, U.S. Fidelity, and Thompson. 153 Colo. at 290, 385 P.2d at In Baeza, we noted that evidence of a mere possibility of a fact having occurred is not sufficient ......
-
Industrial Com'n v. Havens
...awards cannot be denied as the result of speculation or conjecture, nor upon evidence not in the record. United States F. & G. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 122 Colo. 31, 219 P.2d 315, cited by employer as controlling is clearly distinguishable on its facts from this case and is not in poin......
-
People v. Ramirez
...of "mere possibilities of a fact having occurred" is not sufficient to support a judgment, citing Baeza and the cases cited therein, U.S. Fidelity, and Thompson. 153 Colo. at 290, 385 P.2d at In Baeza, we noted that evidence of a mere possibility of a fact having occurred is not sufficient ......
-
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Rees
...it is not substantial. Polz supra. 'No number of mere possibilities will establish a probability'. United States F. & G. Co. v. Ind. Com. (1950), 122 Colo. 31, 219 P. (2d) 315, 317. 'And where as here, defendants show that it is as likely that the injury occurred from one cause as another, ......
-
Chapter 18 - § 18.10 • NEGLIGENCE
...not possibilities. . . .").[200] Id. at 52.[201] Id. (citation omitted) (quoting U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n of Colo., 219 P.2d 315, 317 (Colo. 1950)).[202] Cope, 650 P.2d at 1308; see also Chapter 20, "Damages in Construction Claims."[203] Town of Alma, 985 P.2d at 57; see a......