Valentine v. Weaver

• Decision Date: 18 March 1921
• Citation: 191 Ky. 37,228 S.W. 1036
• Parties: VALENTINE ET AL. v. WEAVER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

228 S.W. 1036

191 Ky. 37

VALENTINE ET AL. v. WEAVER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 18, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boyd County.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of William Valentine, the employé, brought by Cora Valentine and others, opposed by Chas. F. Weaver, the employer. Compensation was awarded by the workmen's compensation board, the award set aside by the circuit court on petition for review, and claimants appeal. Judgment affirmed.

Robt. T. Caldwell, of Ashland, for appellants.

Prichard & Malin, of Ashland, for appellee.

QUIN J.

William Valentine died November 2, 1918. At and prior to this date he had been employed as night watchman by appellee, Weaver trading and doing business as the Ashland Foundry & Machine Company. It was a part of decedent's duty to prepare kindling for the purpose of making fires in the stoves to keep the shop warm. It is claimed that while cutting kindling at the foundry on October 25, 1919, decedent got a splinter in his finger, and died a week later of septicæmia as a result of said injury. Upon application of appellants (the dependent widow and children of decedent) to the Workmen's Compensation Board, an award was made in their favor of $12 per week for a period of 335 weeks (not exceeding the sum of $4,000) besides funeral expenses and costs.

Being of the opinion there was no competent evidence in the record showing decedent was injured or died from any injury received in the course of his employment by appellee, the circuit court, upon petition for review, set aside the award so made by the board. The case was tried in the circuit court on the record certified to it by the Compensation Board, the only evidence before the board being that introduced by appellants. Section 1 of the Compensation Act (Ky. Stats. Supp. 1918, § 4880) provides that the act affects the liability of employers subject thereto to their employés for personal injuries sustained by the employé by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment or for death resulting from such accidental injury.

Since the sufficiency of the evidence to support an award is the real question in issue, we will give a succinct statement of the testimony before the board, using, in the main, the phraseology employed by the witnesses: The first the widow knew of the accident was Saturday morning October 26, about 9 or 9:30. Her husband had gotten home from work, and after breakfast he took a nap. He awakened and said, "I got a splinter in my finger at work last night; have been suffering awful bad and can't sleep." He suggested that their son Jim look at the finger, as he had such good eyesight. Her husband returned to work that afternoon, but soon came home. A doctor was called about 8 p. m. Decedent continued to grow worse all the time.

Decedent's daughter Lida got breakfast for her father about 5 o'clock. He fixed to wash, and said his finger was awful sore, and said: "I got a splinter in it down to the shop last night while getting kindling." She did not look at the finger.

The son James says: That about 9 o'clock Saturday morning his father told his mother to look at his finger, and see if he had gotten a splinter in it. "She told him to get me to look at it. I got a needle and looked at his finger; there was a little hole in it. As soon as I touched it the blood commenced running out. I could not see whether there was a splinter or not. He said it was awful sore; did not tell how he got the splinter there."

Ed Schultz, brother-in-law of Mrs. Valentine, was employed at same place as decedent. Witness was going home about 11:30 Saturday morning; he met decedent coming to town. Decedent showed him his finger, which was swollen, and said he had run a splinter in his finger down at the shop the night before while he was breaking kindling to kindle fires in the coke stoves to keep the shop warm.

Fred A. Lutz, foreman for appellee, was working at a temporary hospital on account of the flu epidemic. At 4 o'clock a telephone message was received to go to the plant and get Bill (decedent) and see what was the matter, and to take him home. One of decedent's fingers was wrapped up. He said: "I am awful sick; it is my hand; that wound makes me sick." He said: "I run a splinter in my finger while cutting kindling here in the shop to build fires."

Dr. De Bord attended decedent Saturday night. Patient was suffering with chills, a high temperature, and complaining of his finger. Said he stuck a splinter in his finger while he was getting kindling to make a fire just after he went to work, or just after he quit work. Was under the impression he wanted to make a fire that morning; it may have been the fire was to have been made that night. It was too late to make an examination of the finger. Two days later the finger was in a terrible condition; made a slight puncture to let some of the infection out. Patient grew worse all the time. Turned the case over to Dr. Moore. The septic condition found could have been due to a splinter. He did not find a splinter.

Dr. Moore saw the patient first on Sunday. Had elevation of temperature and gangrenous condition of one finger. Patient said he had injured his finger, and that he had run a splinter in it some days prior to that. Patient was taken to the hospital and finger amputated; he died of general septicæmia. Patient told witness, as well as he could remember, that while at work he (the patient) ran a splinter in his finger. This man died from general septicæmia, due to infection of the finger, although the time was short for such serious symptoms to be found; does not recall any case where such infection came on so quickly. Patient had practically same symptoms as flu. It was almost impossible to differentiate between them; considering the serious condition of his finger, he attributed it to that cause. But for the condition of the finger he would have been apt to have said it was influenza.

Is this evidence sufficient to show that decedent was injured while in the performance of services for appellee, and was there any causal connection between the requirements of his work and the injury, i. e., did the injury arise out of and in the course of his employment?

U...