Englebretson v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court Aug 7, 1915 No. L.A. No. 4017.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an award of compensation by the Industrial Accident Commission is void if it is based solely on hearsay evidence, as the rule against hearsay is a fundamental principle rather than a mere technical rule of evidence.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Accident Commission has the power to make an award where the only evidence of an accidental injury is hearsay testimony.
Whether the provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Law stating the commission is not bound by 'technical rules of evidence' permits the admission of hearsay as proof of a jurisdictional fact.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that the injury resulted from an accident is a condition precedent to the power of the commission to give compensation for it. An award made without proof of this essential fact is void”

“We cannot agree to the proposition that the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence as proof of a fact is a mere technical rule of evidence.”

“There was no legal proof that the injury was accidental and the commission was without power to award compensation therefor.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION, originally made to the Supreme Court of the State of California for Writ of Review directed to the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts áre stated in the opinion of the court.

George H. Moore, H. C. Huntington, and L. A. Redman, for Petitioners.

SHAW, J.

This is a proceeding in

certiorari,

under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of 1913, to review certain proceedings of the Industrial Accident Commission, taken upon the application of Mary Smith and J. L. Smith, for compensation for an injury claimed to have been suffered by accident to one James M. Wells while he was in the employ of the petitioner Englebretson.

All the questions presented relating to the validity of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, under the constitution of this state "and of the United States, have been determined in favor of the commission by our decision in

Western Indemnity Co.

Pillsbury, ante,

p. 686, [151 Pac. 398], decided August 4, 1915, (S. F. No. 7134), and they need not be considered here The questions here presented, relating to the validity of the order of the commission, depend upon the terms and effect of the compensation act itself.

Wells was working for Englebretson, assisting in operating a scraper used in constructing a railroad embankment. His work was that of driving the team of horses attached to the scraper. Another man loaded, dumped, and handled the scraper itself. Other teams drawing dump wagons were also engaged in the work. In the forenoon of March 4, 1914, Wells became sick while at work and, after several hours, was unable to continue at work longer and was taken home. It was found that an internal hemorrhage in the abdominal cavity, or in the bowels, was the cause of his sickness. He grew worse and died from the effects thereof on March 17, 1914. An autopsy on his body showed that the hemorrhage was caused by the rupture of blood vessels, either arteries or veins, in the intestines, or in the membrane enveloping them, and that this rupture probably occurred while he was at work on March 4. It is claimed that while he was at work with the

[796]

scraper team he was called to assist in swinging around or lifting the end of one of the dump wagons and that in doing so he strained his muscles to such an extent as to cause the rupture of the blood vessels.

Englebretson v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief