Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

SUPREME COURT.

MYRTLE RAMLOW,

Applicant,

VS.
MOON LAKE ICE COMPANY,

and
OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE COR-
PORATION, LTD.,

Respondents.

PROXIMATE CAUSE, DELIRIUM TREMENS—INTENTIONAL AND WILFUL Mis-
CONDUCT.
Applicant's husband, William Ramlow, was injured while in the

employ of respondent ice company, the injury consisting of a
severe fracture of two bones of his right leg just above the
ankle. Two days after the injury he suffered an attack of de-
lirium tremens and died.

HELD: 1. That the fact that his system had been so weakened

by intemperate habits that it was unable to withstand the effects of the injury, does not shift the proximate cause of his death from the injury to such intemperate habits.

2. That his failure under the circumstances of the case to inform the attending physician that he was a drinking man did not amount to intentional and wilful misconduct.

Certiorari to Industrial Accident Board.

Proceeding by Myrtle Ramlow against the Moon Lake Ice Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for the death of her husband. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Accident Board, and respondent brings certiorari. Affirmed.

Hatch, McAllister & Raymond, of Grand Rapids, AttorDeys for applicant.

Kleinhans, Knappen & Uhl, of Grand Rapids, Attorneys for respondents.

Bird, J. William Ramlow, husband of claimant, was an employe of the defendant, Moon Lake Ice Company, of Grand Rapids. On June 3rd, 1914, while attempting to remove a bur from the axle of one of the company's wagons, he slipped and fell, causing a severe fracture of two bones in his right Jeg just above the ankle. He was removed to the hospital where the fracture was reduced and he was placed in bed. There was nothing unusual about his condition until the evening of June 5th, when he suffered an attack of delirium tremens, and died on the following morning. Application was made by the widow for an allowance, and the same was granted at the rate of $6.40 a week for 300 weeks.

(1) Counsel for the ice and insurance companies contend that the award should not have been made for the reason that the testimony shows that the attack of delirium tremens, and not the injury, was the proximate cause of his death. The record contains the testimony of four physicians who appeared to be qualified to speak on such matters, and they gave it as their opinion that the attack of delirium tremens was caused by the injury; further that it was not unusual for delirium tremens to develop about sixty hours after an injury, when the secondary shock sets in with patients who had been in the habit of using alcoholic liquors. Two physicians who testified for the defendants, disagreed with this view, but the record, taken as a whole, is very persuasive that the deceased would not have developed de. lirium tremens when he did, had it not been for the injury and the shock which followed it. The fact that his system had been so weakened by his intemperate habit that it was unable to withstand the effects of the injury, does not thereby shift the proximate cause of death from his injury to his intemperate habit. McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 20 N. Y., 221.

It is said by counsel that this case is similar to that of McCoy v. Michigan Screw Company, 180 Mich., 454. The cases are dissimilar in the material respect, that in the case cited, the claimant by his own act, after receiving the injury, communicated gonorrheal germs to his eye by rubbing it, in consequence of which, he lost the use of it. It was clearly his own act after the injury which caused the loss of his eye. We are of the opinion that the finding of the Board upon this question should not be disturbed.

(2) A further contention is made that the conduct of Ramlow was unreasonable, amounting to wilful and intentional misconduct within the meaning of Section 12, Part II, of the Compensation Act. This is based upon the claim that deceased when asked by his attending physician if he was an alcholic, replied that he was not; that had he answered truthfully that he was, the treatment would have been different, and the attack might have been averted. Touching the habit of deceased in this respect, his foreman testified that he had known the deceased for 23 years, and that he had worked with him off and on for about 16 years, and that the deceased "used to take a drink once in a while, and sometimes quite often" but that "he never saw him in a state when he thought he had been drinking while on duty, and that his drinking did not interfere with his work, and that during the sixteen years he had known him, he had not known him as a drinking man." There is nothing in the record to show that the deceased understood to what extent a person must be addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors to become an alcoholic, neither is there anything to show that he knew that the question propounded had any bearing upon the treatment of his injury. We cannot say as matter of law that the record discloses any wilful or intentional misconduct concerning his answer to the doctor's question. The extent to which he was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors was a question of fact and the same having been determined by the Board, it is not within our

a

power to review it. Boyne v. Storage & Cartage Co., 181 Mich. 278; Redfield v. Ins. Co., 183 Mich. 633.

The award must be affirmed.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

JAMES BLACK MASONRY & CONTRACTING
COMPANY,

and
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE COR-
PORATION, LTD.,

Respondents.

EMPLOYE-INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR-CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.
The applicant was injured while assisting in unloading glass. He

was doing work for the principal contractors on the David Stott Building in Detroit, pursuant to a sub-contract which he held from them. He was doing the work of unloading the glass at the time of his injury pursuant to a verbal arrangement with such principal contractors to assist in such unloading from time to time, said principal contractors to pay him for the work so performed.

HELD: 1. That the employment was not casual within the mean

ing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the applicant being employed to do a particular service recurring somewhat regularly with the fair expectation of continuance for a reasonable period of time.

2. That the work done was individual labor performed for respondent by the applicant and entirely outside the terms and scope of the glazing contract.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board.

Proceedings by Sidney Dyer against the James Black Masonry & Contracting Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for injuries sustained. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Accident Board, and respondent brings certiorari. Affirmed.

Choate, Robertson & Lehmann, of Detroit, Attorneys for applicant.

Frederick T. Witmire, of Detroit, Attorney for Respond. ents.

STONE, C. J. This case is before us upon certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board; the case in its progress having regularly reached the Board, which granted compensation to the claimant, from which order the respondent appeals.

Claimant was injured December 10, 1914, at the David Stott Building in Detroit. He and his partner, John Ross, were, at the time of the accident, engaged in doing the glazing on the building in question under the following written contract with the principal contractor:

"Detroit, Nov. 19, 1914. "Sidney Dyer & John Ross, City. Gentlemen:

We hereby accept your proposition for furnishing all labor and materials necessary (with the exception of the glass) for glazing all the glass in the David Stott Building, as called for in the revised Specifications dated June 2nd, 1914 and the plans, for the sum of Three hundred and twelve ($312.00) payable on the completion of the work and the acceptance of the Architects, Marshall & Fox.

It is understood between us that the glass is to be furnished you at the site of the said building and you are to take it from there and glaze it.

It is also understood that you are not to glaze any glass which is called for to be done by any other contractor rather than the glazing contractors. The glazing contractors are Sidney Dyer and John Ross, working under the name of Dyer & Ross.

It is mutually understood that the glazing contractors are to be

« AnteriorContinuar »