Ybaibarriaga v. Farmer
| Decision Date | 02 July 1924 |
| Parties | CIRIACA YBAIBARRIAGA, Respondent, v. JAMES FARMER and THE MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., Appellants |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW - CONSTRUCTION - INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-EVIDENCE-APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT-POWER OF DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT-SCOPE OF REVIEW-NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF DEPENDENCY.
1. In reviewing hearings before the industrial accident board upon the question as to whether the evidence submitted sustains the findings of the board, the courts will consider the competency, relevancy and materiality of the evidence according to the rules applicable to trials in courts.
2. The findings of fact of the industrial accident board, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal to the district court or to this court, the jurisdiction of said courts being limited to a review of questions of law.
3. Under C. S., sec. 6270, upon appeal from the industrial accident board to the district court, the application of the law to undisputed facts raises a question of law.
4. C S., sec. 6271 (as amended, Sess. Laws 1921, p. 479), applies only in cases where no appeal has been taken from decisions of the industrial accident board, and is only intended to confer power on the district court to enforce an award of said board where the aggrieved party has failed to avail himself of the right of appeal as provided in other sections of the act.
5. Under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended the district court has power on appeal and review of an award of the industrial accident board to enter an independent judgment.
6. Held, that no dependency of claimant herein upon deceased was shown by the evidence before the industrial accident board and that the findings and judgment of the district court are unsupported by the evidence.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.
Judgment reversing award of industrial accident board in favor of claimant, from which defendants appeal. Judgment of district court reversed.
Judgment of the district court reversed, with directions. Costs to appellant.
Chas. M. Kahn, for Appellants.
The findings of fact of industrial accident board of commission are final and conclusive.
In re power of district court to enter money judgment. (Otis Elevator Co. v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 396, 123 N.E. 600; Industrial Com. v. Gen. Acc. Fire & Life Ins. Corp., 71 Colo. 115, 204 P. 338; California Casualty & Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Com., 190 Cal. 433, 213 P. 257; Baum v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 516, 6 A. L. R. 1242, 123 N.E. 625; Rosenthal v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 323, 125 N.E. 250; E. Baggot Co. v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 530, 7 A. L. R. 1611, 125 N.E. 254; McGarry v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 577, 125 N.E. 318; Juergens Bros. Co. v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 420, 125 N.E. 337; Tribune v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 402, 125 N.E. 351.)
What constitutes dependency. (C. S., sec. 6224; Driscol v. Jewel Belting Co., 96 Conn. 295, 114 A. 109; Sweet v. Sherwood Ice Co., 40 R. I. 203, 100 A. 316; Western Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Com., 176 Cal. 776, 169 P. 663; Garcia v. Industrial Com., 171 Cal. 57, 151 P. 741; American Fuel Co. v. Industrial Com., 60 Utah 131, 206 P. 786; Globe Grain & Milling Co. v. Industrial Com., 57 Utah 192, 193 P. 642; Hancock v. Industrial Com., 58 Utah 192, 198 P. 169; Honnold on Workingmen's Compensation, pp. 225-227; Pifumer v. Rheinstein & Haas, 187 A.D. 821, 175 N.Y.S. 848; Di Ionna v. Terry & Tench Co., 203 A.D. 270, 197 N.Y.S. 131.)
E. M. Wolfe and J. F. Martin, for Respondent.
Partial dependency may exist though the contributions made by the workman were at irregular intervals and irregular amounts and though the dependents have other means of existence. (Hotel Bond Co.'s Appeal, 89 Conn. 143, 93 A. 245; Dazy v. Apponang, 36 R. I. 81, 89 A. 160; Temescal Rock Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 180 Cal. 637, 13 A. L. R. 683, and notes, 182 P. 447; Parson v. Murphey, 101 Neb. 542, 163 N.W. 847, L. R. A. 1918F, 479.)
The award of the board stands upon the same basis as a judgment of the district court and if there is substantial evidence to sustain it, it will be sustained, otherwise it will be reversed. (McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, 203 P. 1068.)
There is not substantial evidence to sustain the award of the board. This court is a reviewing court, and if the award be not sustained by competent evidence it is an error in law and will be reversed. (Branham v. Carter Oil Co., 87 Okla. 80, 209 P. 400; Spencer v. John, 33 Idaho 717, 197 P. 827.)
Under the provisions of C. S., sec. 6272A, as well as sec. 6270A, it was contemplated that the district court should enter final judgment. (McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., supra.)
--This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of the eleventh judicial district in and for Twin Falls county, setting aside an award of the industrial accident board. The facts of record are as follows:
Ygnacio Bilbao, a Basque sheep herder, twenty-one years of age and employed by James Farmer, was shot in the head by one Carver on March 27, 1920, and died on March 30, 1920. The claimant, Ciriaca Ybaibarriaga, alleges that she is the mother of the deceased, by adoption. On or about December 10, 1920, claimant made application to the said industrial accident board for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state of Idaho, and after hearings on the matter said industrial accident board on January 25, 1922, made its findings of fact, rulings of law and award, in which it held that deceased was killed in the course of his employment, and that claimant was not dependent upon her adopted son, Ygnacio Bilbao, at the time of his injury, and made an award denying claimant any compensation, and ordered the Maryland Casualty Company, the insurer of said employee, to pay to the treasurer of the state of Idaho the sum of $ 1,000 in accordance with subdivision 7 of C. S., sec. 6223.
Thereafter on February 23, 1922, claimant appealed to said district court for Twin Falls county, the county in which the injury occurred, from the findings, rulings and award of said industrial accident board. The matter thereafter came on for hearing before said court, sitting without a jury, and on September 22, 1922, the court rendered a judgment setting aside the award of said industrial board in which judgment it was held that claimant, at the time of the accident, was actually dependent upon the deceased for her partial support; that she was entitled to compensation therefor; and that the surety, Maryland Casualty Company, should pay the sum of $ 2,400 as follows: $ 1,200 to the treasurer of the state of Idaho, and the remaining $ 1,200 to claimant.
Upon this appeal a stipulation waiving an undertaking was entered into between respective counsel on behalf of the parties.
The following specifications of error are made by appellant:
1. The court erred in entering judgment in favor of the claimant and against defendants herein.
2. The court erred in making its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
3. The court was without power or authority to make and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law and awarding judgment in favor of claimant.
4. The court erred in entering a money judgment in favor of the claimant and against defendants.
5. The court was without jurisdiction or authority to enter a money judgment in favor of claimant and against defendants.
6. That the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the court are contrary to law.
7. That the court was without power, authority or jurisdiction to make findings of fact.
8. That there was no evidence or testimony to justify finding of fact No. 4, and that said finding of fact is not supported by any evidence and is contrary to law.
9. That the court was without power or authority to make finding of fact No. 5, and said finding of fact is not supported by any evidence and is contrary to law.
10. That no dependency of claimant has been shown.
11. That the court was without power, authority or jurisdiction to set aside the findings of fact of the industrial accident board.
12. That the findings of fact of the industrial accident board are final and conclusive.
13. That the matter of dependency is a question of fact to be determined by the industrial accident board, and its findings thereunder are final and conclusive.
14. There is no evidence to support the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, and said findings, conclusions and judgment are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to the evidence.
In his brief, and for the purposes of discussion, counsel for appellant has conveniently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paull v. Preston theatres Corporation, 6960
... ... [ 1 ] Const. art. 5, as amended, S. L. 1937, p ... 498; McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co. , 34 Idaho 773, ... 203 P. 1068; Ybaibarriaga v. Farmer , 39 Idaho 361, ... 228 P. 227; Taylor v. Blackwell Lumber Co. , 37 Idaho ... 707, 218 P. 356; Butler v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co. , ... ...
-
Butler v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
...must be excluded and only competent evidence must be considered in determining the disputed questions of law and fact. ( Ybaibarriaga v. Farmer, 39 Idaho 361, 228 P. 227; Ericson v. Edward Rutledge Timber Co., 33 Idaho 191 P. 212; Chicago Daily News Co. v. Industrial Commission, 306 Ill. 21......
-
Eldridge v. Idaho State Penitentiary
... ... statutes of limitations as applied to court actions ( ... McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, at ... 786, 203 P. 1068; Ybaibarriaga v. Farmer, 39 Idaho ... 361, at 368, 228 P. 227; In re Larson, 48 Idaho 136, ... at 145, 279 P. 1087; Brown v. Hardin, 31 Idaho 112, ... at 115, ... ...
-
Helgeson v. Powell
... ... by vacating the judgment on the verdict, as he ought to have ... granted the motion for directed verdict. ( Ybaibarriaga v ... Farmer, 39 Idaho 361, 228 P. 227; Chapin Co. v ... Scott, 44 Idaho 566, 260 P. 172; Madsen v ... Hutchison, 49 Idaho 358, 290 P ... ...