Western Pac. R. R. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 415 Certiorari to review and annul an award of five thousand dollars to the wife and two minor children of Howard Johnson, deceased, an employee of the Western Pacific Railroad Company. The facts of the case upon which the award is rested succinctly stated are these:

Howard Johnson, employed as collector and messenger by the Western Pacific Railroad Company, petitioner herein, was, on the twenty-first day of December, 1921, while riding on an unlighted bicycle from his home to the place of his employment, struck by an automobile and fatally injured. Two days later he died. About 5 o'clock on the day of the accident the deceased left the office of the petitioner on a bicycle to take a bill of lading for signing to the firm of Morgan Miller located on the waterfront of the city of Stockton. When the deceased left the office the weather was threatening and one-half hour later before he could return to the office a heavy rainstorm broke. Instead of returning directly to the office, which was six blocks away, the deceased went out of his way four blocks to his home, where he procured his raincoat. On his way to his home he purchased some meat which he took home to his wife and as he was leaving the house he told her that he would be detained that evening at his work. He was returning to the office when he was struck by the automobile and sustained the injuries which resulted in his death.

The award of the Commission is predicated upon the finding that the controlling purpose of Johnson in making the detour to his home was to procure his raincoat or "slicker" in order to protect himself from the inclemency of the weather in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner contends that there is no substantial evidence in the record *Page 417 supporting this finding of the Commission but that, on the contrary, the evidence shows that his controlling purpose was to bring meat home to his wife and tell her that he would be detained.

[1] It is a well-recognized rule that the findings of the Industrial Accident Commission upon questions of fact are conclusive and are not subject to review where there is any substantial evidence to support them. (Massachusetts etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 176 Cal. 488 [168 P. 1050]; SouthernPac. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 378 [170 P. 822];Western Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 182 Cal. 709, 720 [190 P. 27].) That is to say, the Commission is the final arbiter where there is a conflict in the evidence or where opposing inferences may reasonably be drawn. (Tartar v.Industrial Acc. Com., 191 Cal. 703 [218 P. 39]; Clapp'sParking Station v. Industrial Acc. Com., 51 Cal.App. 624, 627 [197 P. 369].) [2] It is the rule that where from the evidence two opposing inferences may be drawn, that inference which is accepted by the Commission must be sustained if there is evidence in the record to support it and if it is a reasonable inference to be drawn from that evidence. (Eastman v. Industrial Acc. Com., 186 Cal. 587, 598 [200 P. 17]; PolarIce etc. Co. v. Mulray, 67 Ind. App. 270 [119 N.E. 149].) [3] While there is evidence in the instant case from which the inference might be drawn that the primary purpose of the deceased in stopping at his home on his way back to the office was to take the meat home to his wife, or to notify her that he would be delayed, there is ample evidence from which the inference may be reasonably deduced that his primary and impelling purpose was to procure his "slicker."