Zion's Co-op. Mercantile Institution v. Industrial Commission of Utah

• Decision Date: 29 November 1927
• Docket Number: 4632
• Citation: 70 Utah 549,262 P. 99
• Parties: ZION'S CO-OP. MERCANTILE INSTITUTION et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

262 P. 99

70 Utah 549

ZION'S CO-OP. MERCANTILE INSTITUTION et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al

No. 4632

Supreme Court of Utah

November 29, 1927

Proceeding instituted by the Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution, employer, and the Hartford Accident &amp Indemnity Company, insurer, to review a reward made by the Industrial Commission to Della Jorgensen and others.

AWARD ANNULLED.

Young &amp Boyle, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.

Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Robinson, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendants.

CHERRY, J. THURMAN, C. J., and STRAUP, HANSEN, and GIDEON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CHERRY, J.

This proceeding is to review an award of compensation made by the Industrial Commission to the dependants of Arthur Jorgensen, who died February 12, 1927, as the result of an alleged injury sustained while employed as a salesman by Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution, an employer subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. Laws 1917, §§ 3061-3165), and insured by the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company. The award was made upon findings that the deceased on December 11, 1926, in the course of his employment "was engaged in decorating show cases with crepe paper and while using pins in pinning the paper together he punctured the end of his right forefinger with a pin," and that as a result of the puncture his finger became infected and general septicemia set in, resulting in his death on February 12, 1927.

The plaintiffs, by this proceeding, seek to annul the award upon two grounds, viz.; (1) That there is no evidence, except hearsay, that the deceased sustained an injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the death of deceased resulted from the accidental injury. It is necessary to consider and decide the first ground of complaint only.

There was competent evidence that the deceased sustained a slight injury to his finger on or about the date alleged and that the wound became infected, and for present purposes, though vigorously contested, it may be assumed that the infection spread to other parts of his body and finally caused his death.

The evidence of how and when and where the accident occurred consists solely of the testimony of several witnesses that the employee had made statements to them respectively that he had pricked his finger while at work for his employer. His wife testified that he came...