TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Consolidation Coal Company v. Fields

Consolidation Coal Company Et Al. v. Fields

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Fields, 49 S.W.2d 330 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 26, 1932
Judges
Stanley
Citations
49 S.W.2d 330243 Ky. 4881932 Ky. LEXIS 151

Opinion of the Court — Stanley

Opinion op the Court by Stanley, Commissioner— Reversing.

The appellee, H. F. Fields, filed a claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Board against the appellant on account of injuries sustained by an electric flash and shock. The company denied liability upon the ground that his condition was due to injuries received in an automobile accident, although the evidence was uncontradicted that, due to an “overload,” the electrical machine which the claimant was cleaning did, at the time, emit such a flame of fire and burned and shocked him. His superior employees were aware of the fact that a greater burden was being placed upon the machine than it should have carried, and that there had been other such flashes. The board denied compensation. Upon a review the circuit court regarded the evidence refuting the abundant and persuasive evidence supporting the claim to be “vague, irrelevant and lacking in probative force,” and *489 adjudged the employee substantial compensation for a permanent injury. The appeal is from that judgment.

Without passing upon the merits of the case and the propriety of the circuit court making an award, we are of the opinion that he should have remanded the case to the board for a compliance with section 4933 of the Statutes requiring a separation of the finding of fact and law. The order of the board simply dismissed the application, “because the claimant did not receive a personal injury by accident, while employed by and working for the defendant which would entitle him to compensation.” We have several times held that such an order does not comply with the provisions of the statute. Yeager v. Mengel Co., 242 Ky. 543 , 46 S. W. (2d) 1076 ; Stokes v. Black Hawk Coal Mining Company’s Receiver, 242 Ky. 849 ,-S. W.-, and cases therein cited.

The judgment is therefore reversed, with directions to remand the case to the board for further consideration, and the filing of a statement of its findings of fact and law separately.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11946: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. v. Barnhill61 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. Ct. App. 1933)
  2. H. H. Waegner & Co. v. Moock197 S.W.2d 254 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946)

Most recent

  1. H. H. Waegner & Co. v. Moock197 S.W.2d 254 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946)
  2. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. v. Barnhill61 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. Ct. App. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Yeager v. Mengel Co., 46 S.W.2d 1076 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932) 3
Stokes v. Black Hawk Coal Co.'s Receiver, 47 S.W.2d 740 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list