Court Opinion

ID: 9829716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:33:12.47921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.714014
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.1
At a former day of this term we reversed and remanded this cause. Appellant filed motion for rehearing, which was overruled. At the suggestion and on motion of appellee, we make the following findings of fact, to wit:
“R. A. Price was an employé of the Yellow Pine Paper Mill Company, defendant in error., and while in the discharge of his duty in the course of his employment received injuries, and while in his injured condition and showing upon his person the result of injuries in the-way of blood and other1 evidences thereof, another employé of defendant in error. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Companw, acting within the course of his duty and authorized by the paper mill company, took the injured employé in his automobile to the home of the injured employé, and on the way home the injured employé, Price, told the representative of the paper mill company taking him home that to be taken home in his then condition would be liable to cause his wife a severe mental shock with resulting injuries, and he requested that he not be taken home in that condition, but said representative did take him home in such condition, and the shock to his wife from seeing him brought home in such condition did cause-physical injuries for1 which this action -is brought on the part of the wife. The defendant in error was a subscriber to the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
[7] To the above, we make the following additional findings: That when the accident occurred by which R. A. Price, husband of Mary Price, was injured, George S. Holmes, who was the general manager of appellee, assumed control in rendering first aid to the injured employés, and said Holmes took said Price in an automobile from the place of the accident to the home of said Price, and that while on the way Price told said Holmes not to take him (Price) home in the condition he (Price) was in; that his wife, Mrs. Price, was in the family way and not in condition to see him (Price) in his then condition, and to let him out of the car, but that Holmes did not let Price out of the car, but carried him on to his (Price’s) home; that at the time Price arrived at his home he was bruised and bloody and exhibited external appearances of his injured condition, and MIrs. Price was so mentally shocked and excited at his appearance that she became sick and’ continued to suffer until she miscarried, and has continued to suffer ever since; that at the time oí the accident Mrs. Price was some six months advanced in pregnancy, and that her general health and condition was good up to that time, but has been bad ever since. We further find that the evidence quoted by us in the original opinion herein raises as a question for the jury the issue that the negligence of appellee, acting through its general manager, Holmes, occasioned the injury to Mrs. Price.