Court Opinion

ID: 9532119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:18:21.247933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:40.803220
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Prime, J.
I must embrace a contrary view to that of the majority in this case because of the testimony of Mr. Burk-art, the Assessor:
*287“Q. If I understand you correctly you used Mr. Hays in two capacities?
“A. Yes.
“Q. One capacity was Deputy Assessor of Union Township, Montgomery County, Indiana?
“A. Yes, Sir.
“Q. The other was that of a field man?
“A. He was a Deputy Assessor, that was the only way he could get his money, but as a Deputy Assessor I directed him to do field work.
“Q. He actually was employed on this particular day he was injured as a field man, is that correct?
“A. Yes, Sir.”
Whether the deceased was a “Deputy Assessor” or a “Field Man” is the crux of this case.
The above testimony, in my mind, determines that he was a “Field Man” on the day he was fatally injured.
In my humble opinion the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be liberally and broadly interpreted so as to cover “marginal” cases such as this. The Industrial Board is in the best position to make such determinations.
I would uphold the award of the Industrial Board.
Note. — Reported in 207 N. E. 2d 223.