Title: Pearson v. Faulkner Radio Service Co.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

247 S.W.2d 964 (1952) PEARSON v. FAULKNER RADIO SERVICE CO. et al. No. 4-9753. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 14, 1952. Surrey E. Gilliam, Melvin E. Mayfield and Stein & Stein, all of El Dorado, for appellant. Wright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, Little Rock, for appellees. HOLT, Justice. This is an action against Faulkner Radio Service Company and its insurance carrier under our Workmen's Compensation Law, Initiated Act No. 4 of 1948, effective date, December 3, 1948. Sections 81-1301 to 81-1349, Ark.Stats.1947, Cumulated Pocket Supplement. Appellant suffered an injury June 2, 1949 and by proper procedure sought an award of compensation. The full Commission denied compensation on the ground that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and its action, on appeal to the Union Circuit Court, was affirmed. This appeal followed. The question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission's finding and that of the Circuit Court on appeal. We have consistently held in a long line of cases that The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that injury or death of the employee was the result of an accidental injury that not only arose in the course of the employment, but in addition, that it *965 grew out of, or resulted from, the employment. The Commission made the following findings and conclusions, which we hold are supported by substantial evidence: "That the accidental injury the claimant sustained June 2, 1949, did not arise out of and occur in the course of his employment with the Faulkner Radio Service Company. Appellant argues that he was in the employ of appellee June 1, 1949, as a radio technician or service man, that the Faulkners decided to go into the radio repair business in Magnolia and agreed to purchase the Kelly Radio Shop in that city for the Faulkners and sent him (Pearson) to that city to negotiate the purchase. The evidence shows that appellant, Pearson, was injured on the trip as a result of his automobile failing to negotiate a curve, turning over several times, was demolished, and throwing him about seventy-five feet from the wrecked car. Scattered about were clothes, beer bottles, a gun and between four and five thousand dollars in cash. Mr. Karl Kelly testified, in narrating a conversation with Mr. Faulkner: "* * I walked up and said, `Mr. Faulkner did you know about the deal between James and me?' and he said, `Yes, I did.' I said, T just wondered if it was James buying it or you.' Some of the boys over here had been telling me Mr. Faulkner wanted a place in Magnolia, and he said, `No, it was James. He was buying it himself.' He said he had some trouble with him or a fuss with him and said, `He left my place. I didn't run him off. He quit and left on his own accord.' Q. Do you recall anything else he said about the deal or about James? A. He said, `He is a good radio man.' He says, `He is a good man.' I believe he said, `I should have made him go back to work but I didn't. I just let him go and we have been doing without him.'" Title to the Magnolia Radio Service Company, it was conceded, was to be taken in Pearson's name. After the accident, Mrs. Faulkner asked Mr. Kelly to hold his shop (Kelly Radio Shop) for appellant. Much of the testimony was in conflict. However, it is for the Commission to speak the final word in controversial facts as in jury cases. The evidence was substantial and sufficient to support the Commission's action and the judgment of the Union Circuit Court. Affirmed.