Williams v. School City of Winchester

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Citation: Williams v. School City of Winchester, 104 Ind.App. 83, 10 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. App. 1937)
• Decision Date: 13 October 1937
• Docket Number: 16030.
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. SCHOOL CITY OF WINCHESTER.

10 N.E.2d 314

104 Ind.App. 83

WILLIAMS v. SCHOOL CITY OF WINCHESTER.

No. 16030.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

October 13, 1937

Noel Hickam, Boyd & Armstrong, of Indianapolis, and John D Wilson and John W. Macy, both of Winchester, for appellant.

White Wright & Boleman and Geo. C. Forrey, III, all of Indianapolis, for appellee.

WOOD Judge.

This is an appeal from an award of the full Industrial Board, denying compensation to appellant, as the sole surviving dependent of her deceased husband, Arlam R. Williams. The appellant properly alleges as error for reversal that the award of the full Industrial Board is contrary to law.

A majority of the members of the Industrial Board made a finding and award as follows:

"And the full Industrial

Board having heard the argument of counsel, having reviewed the evidence and being duly advised therein, now finds that on April 16, 1936, one Arlam R. Williams died; that at the time of his death the said Arlam R. Williams was living with Maude Gordon Williams, his wife, who was wholly dependent upon him for support. That on August 6, 1936, plaintiff herein filed her application for the adjustment of a claim for compensation.

"And the Full Industrial Board now finds by a majority of its members that the death of said Arlam R. Williams was not due to any accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant.

Order

"It is therefore considered and ordered by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana by a majority of its members that plaintiff shall take nothing by her complaint herein, and that she shall pay the costs of this proceeding."

The only evidence before the full Industrial Board was that introduced on behalf of the appellant. It is uncontroverted and may be summarized as follows: For some years previous to April 15, 1936, and upon that date, Arlam R. Williams had been and was superintendent of schools of the School City of Winchester, Ind., under and pursuant to a written contract entered into between himself and the Board of School Trustees of said city.

This contract was first entered into in August, 1931, for a period of one year, and was continued from year to year thereafter the contract under which he was working on April 15, 1936, by its terms, terminated on August 1, 1936. His wages were $3,000 per year. In the hiring of teachers for the schools of Winchester, it was one of the duties of the superintendent to interview applicants for teaching positions, to make an investigation of their qualifications for the position sought, and report his findings to the Board of School Trustees with recommendations, which were usually accepted by the board and upon which it acted. Some time previous to April 15, 1936, the Board of School Trustees had received an application from a teacher living in Greentown, Ind., located a short distance from Kokomo, Ind., for employment in the schools of Winchester. Prior to April 15, 1936, the members of the Board of School Trustees of Winchester and the superintendent of schools had received an invitation to attend a meeting of school officials, members of school boards, and school superintendents to be held at Kokomo on that date, for a general discussion of school problems. The members of the Board of School Trustees were not able to attend this meeting. Williams was notified of the meeting by the president of the board. On Monday evening April 13, 1936, a regular monthly meeting of the Board of Trustees was held at which all members and Williams were present. The advisability of Williams attending the meeting at Kokomo, and at the same time interviewing the applicant for employment as a teacher and making an investigation of his qualifications as such, was presented to the Board of Trustees for consideration and determination.

Here we quote the record, Dale Brown, president of the Board of School Trustees testifying as a witness for and on behalf of the appellant:

"Q. Did you receive any invitation to that meeting? A. I did.

"Q. How did you receive that? A. By post card through the mail.

"Q. And did you notify any other members of the board or Mr. Williams of this meeting? A. I notified Mr. Williams.

"Q. And you said there was some discussion at this meeting on Monday night. A. There was.

"Q. What is the fact about your board instructing Mr. Williams to attend this meeting? A. We thought it would be a good idea for him to attend this meeting because he was investigating teachers at that time and on this particular trip he could find out more about a teacher that he was interested in.

"Q. At this same meeting was there any discussion had about a prospective teacher? A. There was.

"Q. Do you know the name of this applicant we are speaking about? A. I don't remember the full name, but I think the last name is Green.

"Q. Can you tell the court where he lives? A. I believe it was Greentown.

"Q. As I understand now, the school meeting was at Kokomo, Indiana? A. That's right.

"Q. Can you tell the court where Greentown is with relation to Kokomo? A. No, I don't know exactly.

"Q. Now just tell the court what was said at this School Board meeting about Mr. Green applying for a position with the School City? A. Well, Mr. Williams seemed very much impressed by the man and was very much interested in hiring him and of course Mr. Williams made our investigations for us and then we could act on his recommendation and we told him we thought it would be a very good idea for him to attend this meeting at Kokomo and also it would give him a better chance to find out more about Mr. Green as he thought there would be others at the meeting who knew Mr. Green and I told him at the meeting that would be a good chance to kill two birds with one stone.

"Q. Did you understand at that time that Greentown was close to Kokomo? A. I think it was close.

"Q. And at this meeting of the School Board you told Mr. Williams to attend this meeting at Kokomo, is that true? A. We thought it would be a good idea for him to attend,--

"Q. You have answered my question. Did you instruct him to attend this meeting? A. Yes, because we wanted him to find out more about this teacher.

"Q. Did you members of the School Board have some discussion about going along with Mr. Williams to this meeting? A. Yes, Mr. Goodrich said that he couldn't go and it was impossible for me to get away and I think Mr. Turner was going but I guess something came up that he wasn't able to go."

"Q. What is the fact about your board instructing Mr. Williams to interview all applicants for positions? A. We instructed him to interview all applicants and not have them come to us as members of the board and then he would recommend to us the ones he thought we should hire."

"Hearing Member: I want to ask him a question. When you talked to Mr. Williams at this School Board meeting about going over to Kokomo to attend this meeting and to interview this prospective teacher, at Greentown, did you issue a direct order for him to go over there and attend this meeting or did you just suggest that he should go? A. He said that he was going and we thought that was a good idea.

"Hearing Member: Did you say to him 'all right, go' or what did you say to him? A. Yes.

"Hearing Member: What was your conversation with him about going over to Kokomo? Let's get it all in the record. A. He told us about this man on the night of the meeting and told us he thought he could find out more about him by going to Kokomo and we told him we thought that was a good idea and for him to go ahead."

"Q. Now that meeting, as I understand it, Mr. Williams said he thought it would be a good thing for him to go to Kokomo to this meeting because he would find some people there from whom he might get a line on this applicant for the job? A. Yes, he said he was going for that.

"Q. He told you he was going? A. Yes.

"Q. Then he wasn't ordered to go by any member of the School Board? A. It was part of his duties.

"Q. It was part of his duties? A. Yes.

"Q. He told you he was going? A. Yes."

After this meeting with the Board of School Trustees on Monday evening, Williams arranged with the superintendent of schools of Union City, Ind., to ride to Kokomo with him in his automobile. While en route to Kokomo, the automobile in which Williams was riding collided with another automobile. In this collision, he sustained injuries which caused his death on April 16, 1936. The Winchester schools were in regular session during all this time. So far as the record shows, Williams was making this trip at his own expense.

In that portion of their brief devoted to argument, counsel for appellee say: "Conceding that appellant's decedent was an employe of the School City of Winchester, the only question remaining to be considered is whether or not the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased arose out of and in the course of his employment, since the dependency and the cause of the death are admitted."

Counsel for appellee call our attention to those well-established rules of law which control this court in its consideration of the facts as found by the Industrial Board, and insist with much earnestness that the facts as found by the Industrial Board in the instant case when examined in the light of these rules of law are fully sustained by the evidence.

In answer to this contention, counsel for appellant in their reply brief say: "No question of weighing evidence is involved in this case. The authorities cited by appellee with reference to the effect of a finding of the Full Board are undoubtedly sound law, but they do not apply where, as here but one inference can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. The question then becomes one of law." The verbatim copy of the evidence above set out is all the evidence...