Williams v. Benedict Coal Corp., Record No. 2687.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2687. |
| Citation | 181 Va. 478 |
| Parties | GEORGE WILLIAMS v. BENEDICT COAL CORPORATION. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Violation of Safety Rule — Burden of Proof — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission dismissing claimant's case. The employer contended that the claimant wilfully violated a safety rule.
Held: That the burden was on the employer to prove that the rule had been adopted by it and approved by the Industrial Commission, that the rule was known or should have been known to the employee, and that the injury resulted from the wilful violation of the rule.
2. INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION — Ambiguous Language Construed Against Party Using It. — If there is uncertainty or ambiguity used in a written instrument, it must be construed against the party using it.
3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Wilful Misconduct or Violation of Safety Rule — Proof Required to Establish. — The defense of wilful misconduct, or wilful violation of a well-known safety rule, in order to be sustained, must be established by proof that the act was deliberately done with knowledge that it was likely to result in serious injury, that it was done in a reckless and wanton manner in utter disregard of probable consequences, or that the act constituted an intentional violation of a well-known rule, which was strictly enforced by the employer.
4. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Violation of Safety Rule — Sufficiency of Evidence — Cast at Bar. — The instant case was an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission dismissing claimant's case. The employer contended that the claimant wilfully violated a safety rule. The evidence showed that claimant had to decide instantly whether he would permit a train to be wrecked or whether he would try to operate a switch by hand between moving cars.
Held: That the proof failed to establish that the accident of the employee was deliberately done with knowledge that it was likely to result in serious injury, that it was done in a reckless and wanton manner in utter disregard of probable consequences, or that the act constituted an intentional violation of a well-known rule, which was strictly enforced by the employer.
Appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission of Virginia.
The opinion states the case.
Fred B. Greear, for the appellant.
Pennington & Pennington, for the appellee.
George Williams, on March 10, 1942, sustained injuries resulting from an accident that arose "out of and in the course of" his employment. The Industrial Commission denied an award on the ground that claimant's injuries were the result of his wilful violation of one of the safety rules promulgated by the employer and known to claimant. From an order dismissing the case claimant obtained this appeal.
Claimant was employed by the Benedict Coal Corporation as a coupler, or brakeman, to assist in operating the small coal trains used in bringing coal out of the mine. One of his duties required him to change the switches controlling the movement of trains over the desired underground rails.
The switch in question was in many respects a miniature of an ordinary railroad switch used by steam railroads. The two movable rails on the switch were connected underneath by a bar called a "bridle bar" or a "bridle rod," which, in fact, is a tie-rod designed to hold the two switch rails in proper gauge. One end of this bar extends a few inches beyond the rail so that a handle or "throw" can be attached, if it is desired to use such handle in the operation of the switch. However, 22 of the switches installed in that part of the mine to which claimant was assigned were not equipped with handle bars. Hence it was necessary to operate them by hand.
At the time claimant was injured, he had changed the switch by hand and was standing by it watching the train or "trip," composed of an engine and two empty cars, pass. After the wheels of the front car had passed over the switch, the switch rails appeared to claimant to be in such position or shape that there was danger of the second car taking another set of tracks. In order to avoid a possible wreck, claimant thrust his right hand...
To continue reading
Request your trial