Court Opinion

ID: 9626679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:21:16.623736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:45.827464
License: Public Domain

Felton and Townsend, JJ.,
dissenting. We are of the opinion that the board was authorized to find in favor of compensation. There is no use to cite authority for the proposition that if there is any evidence authorizing the findings of the board this court cannot interfere. The majority base their ruling on the theory that the evidence demanded a finding that the trip was for pleasure exclusively, based on the testimony of witness Sapp. Sapp testified that from what was said ‘the trip was a pleasure trip. In a court of law the answer would have been objectionable as a conclusion. The board had a right to rule and did rule on the validity of Sapp’s conclusion. The board explicitly rejected the testimony and showed in the award that the testimony was a conclusion. In this view the board had ample evidence on which to base the award.