Case ID: ind-app_86/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Enloe, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bartholomew et al. v. Northwestern Indiana Telephone Company et al.
    [No. 13,027.
    Filed October 5, 1927.]
    Master and Servant. — Industrial Board’s finding on question of ■fact must be affirmed if evidence sustains it. — Whether an employee was acting in the line of his employment at the time of his injury is purely a question of fact for the Industrial Board, and where there was evidence sustaining the board’s finding that he was not, the award denying compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act must be affirmed.
    From Industrial Board of Indiana.
    Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Albert Bartholomew and wife for the death of their son, Robert E. Bartholomew, opposed by the Northwestern Indiana Telephone Company, employer, and another. From a denial of any compensation, claimants appeal. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
    
      Ralph N. Smith, Ben C. Rees and Russell W. Smith, for appellants.
    
      Tinkham & Galvin, T. A. Cooper, William Daly and Joseph W. Hutchinson, for appellees.
   Enloe, J. —

This is an appeal from an award of the-full Industrial Board denying an award of compensation to the appellants on account of the accidental death of their son, Robert E. Bartholomew, upon whom the appellants claimed to be wholly dependent for their support.

No useful- purpose would be served by setting out the circumstances under which said Robert met his death. The one and controlling question involved in.this case and upon which the award rested is, Was the said Robert Bartholomew, at the time he was killed, acting within the line of his employment? This, upon the record before us, was purely a question of fact. The Industrial Board found that he was not so acting and denied compensation. There is evidence to sustain their finding as to this fact and the said award, therefore, must be and is hereby affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.