Court Opinion

ID: 9589842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:49:23.240465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:20.693331
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of Mr. Justice Brailsford, and would reverse the order of the circuit court.
Our cases are legion to the effect that the Industrial Commission is the trier of the facts. Neither the circuit court nor this Court should reverse the Industrial Commission on factual issues unless the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference.
The basic question for determination by the Commission was: did Sexton’s death arise out of and in the course of his employment? The Industrial Commission found as a matter of fact that it did not. In order to warrant the con*20elusion reached by the circuit court and the majority opinion, one must say that the claimant has proved her case not only by the preponderance of the evidence, but to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences.
I am of the opinion that counsel for the respondent and the majority opinion misstate the question involved. The respondent submits that the question is: “. . . is the claimant entitled to the application of the principle of law, that where an employee is found dead at a time and place ‘Where his employment reasonably required him to be, there is a presumption of fact that the death arose out of and in the course of the employment.’ ” The question presupposes that the employee was where his employment required him to be. If he was, under the facts of this case, the presumption is not needed.
The majority opinion submits the question to be: “whether the finding by the Industrial Commission that the fatal accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment is supported by evidence.”
The burden of proof was on the claimant to show that the death arose out of and in the course of employment. Defendant, in order to prevail, did not have to prove anything. Neither the circuit judge’s order nor the majority opinion points out any evidence which entitles the claimant to recover as a matter of law. The fact that evidence is not disputed does not always mean that only one reasonable inference is created. Reasonable persons can and often do interpret the same evidence in a different way.
While the circuit judge and the majority opinion do not point out evidence warranting the conclusion reached, the Industrial Commission does concretely point out factually the basis of its findings. The Commission said:
“From a careful consideration of the evidence, we conclude that there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence sufficient to carry the burden of proof. The most that can be said is that the deceased employee was killed while driv*21ing his employer’s truck, but the record is totally bare of any direct proof that he was engaged in his employer’s business. In fact, the evidence is positive that shortly before the accident, the deceased employee was attending to personal matters, having driven his employer’s truck to the barbershop, where he got a haircut.
“The only evidence which even tends to show that he might have been on his employer’s business is that he went to a brush fire in the country in the vicinity of which was a bottle gas tank at a residence. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the deceased employee went near or to this tank, and there is positive evidence to show that his truck was parked about four-tenths of a mile from the small tank and that he was with the volunteer firemen in the field where the fire was burning, a considerable distance from the house where the tank was located. We conclude that there was no evidence that the deceased employee frequently checked on tanks belonging to his employer in the general vicinity of fires, although there is an inference that he may have done this on rare occasions. It is our opinion that the circumstances surrounding this occurrence are, in fact, such as to lead to the reasonable inference that the employee was not fulfilling or engaged in doing anything incidental to his duties and, consequently, his death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
“Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that the Hearing Commissioner was in error in awarding compensation to the claimant, there being a failure to meet the burden of proof. The Commission, in fact, has come to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the defendants and that the deceased employee was not engaged in doing anything in connection with the duties of his employment at the time of the accident.”
The majority opinion, in the last paragraph, concedes that the deceased was not at the brush fire in furtherance of his employer’s interests. It concludes, however, that when he started back toward his place of employment, the em*22ployment was resumed. Overlooked is the fact that it is shown by the evidence that at the time of the unfortunate death he had not re-entered the area or sphere of his employment. It can only be said that he went to the fire to satisfy his own curiosity and perhaps help with the fire, and had not at the time of his death returned to his job.