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...
