From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Keefe

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 15, 1927
113 So. 400 (Ala. 1927)

Opinion

6 Div. 895.

June 15, 1927.

Bradley, Baldwin, All White, S. M. Bronaugh, and W. M. Neal, all of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Whether there is a total lack of evidence to support a material part of the finding of fact in a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a question of law, which the appellate court, looking to the bill of exceptions, will decide on certiorari. Ex parte Sloss Co., 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458; Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 74, 99 So. 97; Ex parte Big Four Min. Co., 213 Ala. 305, 104 So. 764. The requirement of the Compensation Act that written notice of an accident be given the employer within 90 days thereafter is mandatory, and a claimant, failing to show such notice or, as a substitute, knowledge on the part of the employer, cannot recover. Code 1923, §§ 7568, 7569; Ex parte Harper, 210 Ala. 134, 97 So. 140; Ex parte Sloss Co., 212 Ala. 699, 103 So. 920; Ex parte Stith Coal Co., 213 Ala. 399, 104 So. 756; T. C. I. Co. v. Pope, 21 Ala. App. 183, 107 So. 735; Id., 214 Ala. 383, 107 So. 736.

Mathews Mathews, of Bessemer, for respondent.

The bill of exceptions will not be considered, except where the findings of fact are too meager fully to inform the appellate court in regard to some fact essential to petitioner's right of recovery. Gulf States Steel Co. v. Griffin, 214 Ala. 126, 106 So. 899; Ex parte Paramount Coal Co., 213 Ala. 281, 104 So. 753; Woodward Iron Co. v. Bradford, 206 Ala. 447, 90 So. 803; Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 111, 99 So. 650. The appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court, where there is any evidence to support his conclusion. Crowder v. Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 111, 99 So. 651; Ex parte Nunnally, 209 Ala. 82, 95 So. 343; Ex parte Sloss Co., 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458.


Knowledge brought home to the employer within 90 days of the injury to the employee caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, or notice as prescribed by the statute, is an essential element of the employee's cause of action under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Code of 1923, §§ 7568, 7569; Ex parte Stith Coal Co., 213 Ala. 399, 104 So. 756; Ex parte Harper, 210 Ala. 134, 97 So. 140; Ex parte Big Four Coal Mining Co., 213 Ala. 305, 104 So. 764.

It is conceded that the notice prescribed by the statute was not given. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff is based on the conclusion or finding "that the plaintiff received an injury to his eye as a proximate result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment of which the defendant had knowledge." The statement of facts made by the trial court, and embraced in the judgment does not sustain the conclusion that the defendant had knowledge of the injury, nor does the conclusion of the court based on the evidence show that such knowledge was brought to the defendant within 90 days from the alleged injury, and, for these reasons, the judgment is erroneous, and must be reversed. Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 74, 99 So. 97.

Writ of certiorari granted, reversed, and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Keefe

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 15, 1927
113 So. 400 (Ala. 1927)
Case details for

Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Keefe

Case Details

Full title:SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL IRON CO. v. KEEFE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 15, 1927

Citations

113 So. 400 (Ala. 1927)
113 So. 400

Citing Cases

Swift Co. v. Rolling

Compliance with technical rules as to pleading is not required in workmen's compensation cases.…

Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Keefe

Bradley, Baldwin, All White, S. M. Bronaugh, and W. M. Neal, of Birmingham, for appellant. The requirement of…