Court Opinion

ID: 9854275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:04:17.36883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:59.989893
License: Public Domain

PHELPS, Justice.
I dissent.
I recognize the rule of this court that where evidence submitted to a fact-finding body is of such a character that reasonable men may draw different inferences therefrom, the finding of that body upon such evidence is binding upon this court and the fact that three of my associates have drawn different inferences from that upon which I seek to base my conclusion should constitute a compelling reason for my concurrence in affirming the findings and award of the commission. However, the facts in this case are such that I desire to enter a protest against the findings and award of the commission upon the evidence as shown by the record.
First, the testimony of the witness Hickey, truck driver for Buckman who was in the garage where plaintiff’s truck was parked at around 6:00 a. m. walked right by the truck and saw Martin in the cab apparently asleep. He stated under oath he was positive the truck motor was not running at that time. He also said that neither of the refrigerator motors were running at that time. Therefore there was nothing to prevent him from hearing the motor of the truck running if it had been. Hickey was a disinterested witness. His testimony was unequivocal. To reach the conclusion arrived at by the commission, it had to disbelieve Hickey.
Buckman testified that he went into the garage round 9:00 a. m. and walked right by the truck. At that time he said both refrigerator motors were running and were noisy. When asked if he observed whether or not the truck engine was running, he replied : “No, I didn’t, I didn’t hear it running.” In a statement previously made before an investigator for the commission, *414Buckman testified somewhat at variance with the above. He was asked the question:
“Q. Did you notice any motors running at that.time? A. The compressor on the the ice cream truck.
I wouldn’t say the compressor on the big box was running.
“Q. Did you notice the motor of a truck running? A. Not at all.
“Q. If it had been running, would the noise from the motor of the compressor probably drown it out? A,
I believe it would, because that compressor is rather noisy.
“Q. Much noisier than an automobile motor would be ? A. Yes.”
His testimony relative to whether the truck motor was or was not running at 9:00 a. m. is negative and has no probative value whatever. The truck motor was running at around 12 o’clock noon. If it was not running at 6:00 a. m. and was running at noon, it was started by someone during that period and Martin was the only man who could have started it for the reason that there were no other persons in the garage during that period except Buckman who testified he went to the restaurant for a ■cup of. coffee 15 or 20 minutes before 10:00 a. m. Mrs. Durkee saw him at the restaurant that morning having a cup of coffee. She had just met Martin on the street and had said “Hi” to him. She first thought she would stop Martin and tell him he was expected to appear before the selective service board, by whom she was employed, the following day, but the weather was so bad she decided to call him over the phone and give him the information. She positively identified the date as the 7th. Buckman said he was out of his office about 15 minutes. He further stated he either bought a package of cigarettes at the restaurant or walked on to Prochnow’s News Stand and bought one — he didn’t remember which. He didn’t remember seeing Mrs. Durkee at the restaurant that morning, although he said he had frequently seen her there. He didn’t remember whether the restaurant was crowded or just how it was that morning. He didn’t remember whether the wind was blowing hard or not.
One so unobserving could have failed to observe Martin enter the garage that morning before he went to the restaurant or he could easily have been mistaken about the length of time he was absent from his office for coffee. His testimony was most unsatisfactory about everything he attempted to relate. In any event Martin could have gone to the garage soon after speaking to Mrs. Durkee and entered it while Buckman was at the restaurant or at Prochnow’s purchasing cigarettes.
Hickey testified that he observed Martin’s shoes beside the door of the 'cab,
“ * * * Just as if a man would start to climb up in the truck, if you had the door open and started- to step *415in, if you would take your shoes off, that’s just exactly the position they were in.”
The witness Kinvig said he didn’t remember anything about Martin’s shoes. In answer to the question, “They could have been on or off. Is that correct?” he answered, “That’s correct.” He stated he didn’t notice Martin’s shoes beside the door of the truck while assisting in removing his body from the cab but he did look back from the entrance to the garage as he was leaving (some 30 to 35 feet away from the truck), and saw the shoes. When asked where they were with respect to the door of the truck cab he said,
“Well, I couldn’t tell from where I was standing. I was right at the entrance way. They appeared to be right there at the side of the cab.”
Kinvig was then asked if he removed Martin’s shoes from his feet and he testified that he didn’t know whether he did or not. The testimony is that Martin’s feet and legs were entangled in the gears. The witness testified that Dr. Sechrist and a Mr. Hutchison had hold of Martin’s shoulders and that he, Kinvig, cleared his feet which were hung up on something. It is entirely probable that Kinvig removed Martin’s shoes to aid in disentangling his feet from the gears. He said he was greatly excited at the time. The- witness Hutchison who assisted in getting Martin out of the truck observed at some time that'Martin’s shoes were of? but never saw the shoes at all. At the hearing before the commission on April 23, 1952, Dr. Sechrist did not mention whether Martin had his shoes on or off, or whether he saw the shoes at all. He had stated on a former occasion to an investigator for the commission that when he first saw Martin his shoes were off. He said when they got him out of the truck he didn’t have any shoes on. This is probably the first time he observed the shoes were off.
Dr. Sechrist testified that rigor mortis had set in at the time they were attempting to remove him from the truck while all of the other witnesses including Kin-vi'g and Hutchison, the undertaker and his assistant, testified that the body was very, very limp and one witness said in moving him to the undertaking establishment, he had to put his hands under his belt to keep them from falling off the side of the cot on which the body was laid. The doctor further testified that the body was warm and that the discoloration of his face about which he testified could have taken place in two hours after his death.
It will be observed that the doctor placed Martin’s death from two to six hours prior to 12 o’clock noon. While the undertaker who had probably had more experience in observing how soon rigor mortis sets in after death than any witness who testified, placed the time of death of Martin at one to one and one-half hours prior to 12:15 p. m. when he received the body for transfer *416to the undertaking parlors. He stated positively that rigor mortis had not then set in.
Deputy Sheriff Paxton testified that he made an examination of the interior of the truck cab after the body had been removed and found sputum of deceased on the seat of the truck. In answer to a question of the referee what that indicated to him other than that Martin’s head had been in a certain position, he replied that “It indicated, due to the freshness of part of the sputum, that it had been done very recently.” He further stated that portions of the sputum had dried on the edges and
“ * * * From the doctor’s testimony, which we had to go on, the assumption was that due to the heat in the cab, the sputum tended to dry rather rapidly, and it appeared to be overlaying in successive layers. * * * ”
■I submit that Dr. Sechrist’s testimony as to when Martin died based upon rigor mortis is not entitled to as much weight as that of the undertaker who fixed the death at one to one and a half hours prior to 12:15 p. m. while the doctor fixed, at from two to six hours, the margin within which death could have occurred. Such a statement, it appears to me, shows such a lack of definiteness as to the time of death as to render its probative value nil. Especially is the above true if we consider the number of witnesses who testified that the body was limp and the testimony of the doctor himself that the body was still warm when removed from the truck. And especially in view of the further testimony of the doctor that “And after working with him (Martin) 15 or 20 minutes, we realized it was hopeless.” If Martin had been dead two to six hours at the time he was taken from the cab, the doctor should have realized then that resuscitation was impossible.
The witness Herring testified that he saw Martin pass the Rose Tree Buffet between 8:20 and 9:00 a. m. on the morning of the 7th, indicating that Martin probably was out of the garage at the time Buckman went to work at a few minutes before 9:00. The witness Martinez who was cleaning up in the buffet at the time, stated positively that Herring told him at the time Martin passed the buffet that he had just gone by and that later in the day at around 2:00 p. m. after hearing of Martin’s death, Herring again mentioned that he had seen Martin go by the buffet that morning.
Thus we have the testimony -of two witnesses who saw Martin on the streets of Flagstaff on the morning of the 7th between 8:20 and 10:00 a. m. and spoke to him, one of whom was corroborated by the witness Martinez. We have the testimony of Hickey that at 6 :00 a. ifi. the motor in the truck positively was not running. We have the testimony of Kinvig that it was running around 12 o’clock noon. We have the fact that no one was at the garage between 6 :00 a. m. and the time Martin was found dead near the noon hour except Martin, Hickey and Buckman. If this is true *417the fact is inescapable that Martin turned the truck motor on during that period, which he probably did upon his return to the garage around 10:00 a. m. after meeting Mrs. Durkee on the street. It was snowing and he doubtless concluded not to make a trip outide of Flagstaff and because of domestic conditions at home and because of the fact that he had been up until after 2:00 a. m. that morning he decided to sleep a little while. The testimony showed that Martin usually worked from 6:00 a. m. to 6:00 p. m. If Martin was seen on the street by Herring and Mrs. Durkee his death arose during the course of his employment.
Against all this testimony we have one extrinsic circumstance. The witness Hickey testified that he saw Martin’s shoes beside the left-hand door of the cab. No other witness said he saw the shoes at the same place where Hickey saw them. Naturally if Martin returned to the garage during the absence of Buckman and again removed his shoes they would necessarily be within a few feet of where Hickey saw them. Kinvig said that after he had reached the entrance of the garage, leaving the building, he looked back and noticed the shoes there but couldn’t tell where they were with relation to the door of the truck. Kinvig, in his excitement could have removed Martin’s shoes for the purpose of disentangling his feet and legs from the gears which would be a very natural and logical thing to do and in his excitement, not remember having done so. As above stated, he was unable to say that he did not do so.
With due deference to the members of the commission for whom I have the greatest respect, it appears to me that they totally disregarded the positive testimony of the witnesses who saw and spoke to Martin on the streets of Flagstaff on the morning of his death. They disregarded the testimony of Hickey who said 'he was positive the engine of the truck was not running at 6:00 a. m. and the testimony of Kinvig that he turned the motor off around 12 o’clock noon. They disregarded the testimony of a goodly number of witnesses who testified that the body of Martin was very limp when removed from the truck and taken to the undertaking establishment. They disregarded the statement of Dr. Sechrist that rigor mortis could set in within two hours after death and that the body was warm when removed from the cab of the truck. They disregarded the testimony of the deputy sheriff that the saliva on the seat of the truck from the mouth of deceased was fresh at 12 o’clock indicating it had not been there long. And they singled out the one extrinsic circumstance relating to Martin’s shoes being seen by Hickey beside the left door of the truck cab at 6:00 a. m. To my mind to accept this circumstance as proof of Martin’s death having occurred before he entered upon the discharge of the duties of his employment is very much like *418the fellow who asserted he had seen an elephant climb a telephone pole and when his veracity was questioned, in order to prove his assertion he said, “Well, there is the pole.”
I am sincerely of the view that the findings and award should be set aside.