Wilson v. Standard Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1929
• Docket Number: 5219
• Parties: A. C. WILSON, Employee, Respondent, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY, Employer, and COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO., Surety, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

273 P. 758

47 Idaho 208

A. C. WILSON, Employee, Respondent, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY, Employer, and COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO., Surety, Appellants

No. 5219

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 8, 1929

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW-INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-EVIDENCE-COMPETENCY-NOTICE TO EMPLOYER-NECESSITY.

1. Industrial Accident Board is not court, and is not bound by strict rules of evidence.

2. Although much latitude is permitted Industrial Accident Board in admission of evidence, its findings of fact cannot be based on incompetent evidence.

3. Refusal of Industrial Accident Board to admit testimony as to employee's statements respecting injury held not to require reversal, even though it should have been admitted in exercise of good judgment, since proffered evidence was hearsay and no finding could have been based thereon.

4. Where claimant failed to show that employer, its agents or representatives, had knowledge of accident, or that employer was not prejudiced by delay in giving notice or want of notice, under C. S., secs. 6243, 6246, he cannot recover.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. W. F. McNaughton, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment which reversed a decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation under Workmen's Compensation Law. Reversed.

Judgment reversed. Costs to appellants.

Wm. J Costello, for Appellants.

The Industrial Accident Board having expressly found that no notice of the injury claimed by claimant was given to defendant, Standard Oil Company, or to any officer or agent thereof, as required by law, the order of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation to claimant and dismissing his claim for compensation is final and conclusive upon the parties hereto. (Bodah v. Coeur d'Alene Mill Co., 44 Idaho 680, 258 P. 1079.)

E. T Knudson, for Respondent, cites no authorities on points decided.

WM. E. LEE, J. Budge, C. J., Givens and Taylor, JJ., and Hartson, D. J., concur.

OPINION

WM. E. LEE, J.

--Claimant commenced this proceeding for compensation for the loss of sight of an eye, which he claims resulted from a strain caused by lifting a heavy sill in the construction of a building by the Standard Oil Company.

The board refused to permit the witness Lobdell to testify that, about two hours after lifting the sill, claimant told him that he believed he had strained himself or had lifted too hard. The board also refused to permit testimony by one Twilliger that, on the evening of the day of the alleged injury, claimant said he would not need his tool box if his eye did not improve.

The Industrial Accident Board found that no notice of the injury was given the employer, or any officer or agent thereof, "as soon as practicable after the happening thereof"; (C. S., sec. 6243) that no notice was given until about the 9th of July, 1926 (the date of the accident being on or about July 15, 1925); that it was not shown that the employer, its agents or representatives, had knowledge of the accident, or that the employer was not prejudiced by delay or want of notice. The board also found that "claimant's loss of vision and his blindness are not the result of any injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" with the Standard Oil Company.

The board dismissed the proceeding, and the district court, on appeal, held that the board had erred in refusing to admit the proffered testimony, reversed the cause and directed the board to conduct a further hearing and admit the rejected testimony. It is from the judgment of the district court that this appeal is prosecuted.

The question for determination is whether the...