Opinion
6 Div. 462.
January 14, 1926. Rehearing Denied March 8, 1926.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
S. R. Hartley, of Birmingham, for appellant.
An employé killed by an electric shock is killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Lawson v. Mobile E. Co., 85 So. 257, 204 Ala. 318; Ex parte Todd, etc., Co., 103 So. 447, 212 Ala. 477. The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are to be liberally construed in favor of the employé. Ex parte W. T. Smith Lbr. Co., 90 So. 807, 206 Ala. 485; Ex parte Majestic Coal Co., 93 So. 728, 208 Ala. 86.
Huey Welch, of Bessemer, for appellee.
Where the finding by the circuit judge is supported by any evidence, the judgment will be affirmed and the bill of exceptions will not be looked to. Ex parte Woodward Ir. Co., 99 So. 97, 211 Ala. 74; Ex parte Jagger C. Co., 99 So. 99, 211 Ala. 11; Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 99 So. 649, 211 Ala. 111; Ex parte Gadsden Car Works, 99 So. 725, 211 Ala. 82; Ex parte Sloss Co., 92 So. 458, 207 Ala. 219; Ex parte Nunnally Co., 95 So. 343, 209 Ala. 82.
That the death of the employee was "caused by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment" is a necessary condition to the right to compensation. When put in issue by answer, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff claiming compensation.
As appears from the foregoing statement of the case, the trial court gave a summary of the evidence on both sides relating to the controlling issue in the case, followed by his conclusion.
Appellant's argument is directed largely to a discussion of the weight of the evidence. It misconceives the duty and function of the appellate court in this class of cases. The case is not triable de novo on the evidence presented by bill of exceptions, nor reviewed even as the finding of a judge sitting without a jury in ordinary trials at law or in equity upon testimony of witnesses examined before the court. The proceeding here is by certiorari, in which a bill of exceptions is allowed as part of the record, not for the purpose of passing upon the weight of the evidence, but, in cases like the present, to determine whether there is any evidence supporting the finding of the trial judge. Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 99 So. 97, 211 Ala. 74; Ex parte Gadsden Car Works, 99 So. 725, 211 Ala. 82; Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 99 So. 649, 211 Ala. 111; Ex parte Nunnally Co., 95 So. 343, 209 Ala. 82; Ex parte L. N. R. Co., 94 So. 289, 208 Ala. 216; Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield S. I. Co., 92 So. 458, 207 Ala. 219. The evidence appearing in the bill of exceptions clearly supports the summary of evidence made by the trial court, as well as his conclusions of fact. A recital of the testimony of the several witnesses in detail would serve no good purpose.
The writ is denied, and the judgment affirmed.
Writ denied; judgment affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.