Title: of Bennett v. Durango Furniture Mart
Citation: 319 P.2d 494
Docket Number: 18410
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: December 23, 1957

319 P.2d 494 (1957) CLAIMANTS in the Matter of the Death of Leo W. BENNETT, Plaintiffs in Error, v. DURANGO FURNITURE MART, Industrial Commission of Colorado, and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants in Error. No. 18410. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. December 23, 1957. Rehearing Denied January 13, 1958. William S. Eakes, E. B. Hamilton, Durango, for plaintiffs in error. Harold Clark Thompson, Louis Schiff, Alious Rockett, Fred Boden Dudley, Denver, for State Compensation Insurance Fund and Durango Furniture Mart. Duke Dunbar, Atty. Gen. of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Industrial Commission of Colorado. KNAUSS, Justice. In the trial court plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs and defendants in error were defendants. We shall refer to plaintiffs (widow and two minor children of Leo *495 W. Bennett) as claimants; to Durango Furniture Mart as "employer"; to defendant in error Industrial Commission of Colorado, as the Commission. Leo W. Bennett will be referred to as the deceased. This is a workmen's compensation case in which claimants sought compensation for the death of deceased. The findings and conclusions of the Referee were adverse to claimants, and were approved and confirmed by the Commission. The case was taken to the district court where the decision of the Commission was affirmed. Claimants are here on writ of error. The facts are accurately stated in the findings of the Referee and we quote the salient portions thereof: The question presented by this review is: Did the Industrial Commission properly decide that the decedent did not sustain an accidental injury or overexertion arising out of his employment? We are required under this record to answer this inquiry in the affirmative. All the pertinent facts surrounding the activities of decedent on the day of his death were before the Referee and his findings were adverse to the claims of plaintiffs. It necessarily follows that the Commission as trier of the facts weighed the evidence, examined and evaluated the witnesses. Where the evidence is such that reasonable men might differ and honestly arrive at contrary conclusions based on a record such as that before us for review, the findings of the Commission are final and conclusive. The best that can be said of claimant's case is that there is a conflict in the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. No unusual effort or overexertion appears as a matter of law in the case, and the question whether or not there was overexertion, was one of fact for the determination of the Commission. The Referee and the Commission found the decedent's death was not the proximate result of an accidental *496 strain or injury arising out of and within the course of his employment. In Industrial Commission of Colorado v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 132 Colo. 256, 287 P.2d 275, 276, we said: Quoting further from Industrial Commission of Colorado v. International M. &amp; C. Corp., supra: "It may be accepted as true that some exertion probably hastened the death; however, there is exertion in all forms of menial labor and the requirements of law in such cases are that there must be more than mere exertion, in other words, the claimant must establish overexertion." The record discloses that deceased worked for his employer for some seven years. His work was described by the witnesses as from medium to heavy. In doing his regular work deceased handled bulky objects weighing from 150 to 300 pounds. The work he did on the occasion when he delivered the mattresses was lighter than his usual work. The larger of the two mattresses delivered weighed approximately 75 pounds, and was handled not by the deceased alone but with the assistance of a neighbor in carrying it into the residence. Deceased handled the smaller mattress, weighing about 55 pounds, by himself. We are definitely of the opinion that the record here discloses a situation where conflicting inferences to be drawn from the facts submitted were peculiarly within the province of the Referee and the Commission and having determined them adversely to claimants, there being no question of misapprehension of the law to such facts, the courts may not interfere. Hamilton v. Industrial Commission, 132 Colo. 408, 289 P.2d 639. An accident arises out of the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. The Commission's findings when supported by competent evidence are binding upon the courts. Metz Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 134 Colo. 249, 302 P.2d 521. Havel v. Industrial Accident Commission, Cal.App., 316 P.2d 680. *497 The factual situation disclosed by the record in the instant case readily distinguishes it from Industrial Commission v. Havens, Colo., 314 P.2d 698. The findings of the Commission being amply supported by the evidence, the judgment is affirmed.