Armour Fertilizer Works v. Thomas

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The claim of the dependent children of James A. Thomas, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, alleging that their father died as the result of an accidental injury sustained in the course of his employment, was allowed by the State Industrial Accident Coimmission, and its decision was affirmed by the Baltimore City Court. The further appeal of the employer presents for review three rulings of the lower court, relating to the form of the issues, the admission of evidence, and the instructions to the jury. Thomas was employed by the appellant as a scowman at its factory in Baltimore.

On January 8th, 1926, he died from the effects of septicaemia resulting from an infection of the big toe of his right foot, which developed gangrene and necessitated the amputation of the lower part of the leg. While the toe which became infected had been sore for some weeks, Thomas continued the regular and active performance of his duties until December 31st, 1925. There is testimony in the record tending to prove that a pick dropped on his tote while he was engaged in his work on that day, and his ⁶³³ attending physician testifies that on January 3rd he discovered on the toe a complete rupture of the skin about three-fourths of au inch in length, of apparently recent origin, through which, in his opinion, the infection entered. The medical evidence proved without dispute the existence of an arterio-sclerotic condition, which made Thomas susceptible to serious consequences from a slight infection.

It was the appellant’s contention, in support of which expert testimony was produced, that the septicaemia was not caused by infection from an external injury, but had an internal origin resulting from the arterio-sclerosis. According to proof on behalf of the appellant, the fall of the pick on the decedent’s toe did not occur on December 31st, 1925, but happened a month or more prior to that time. One of the witnesses testified to a statement by .Thomas that his toe was getting well after- the pick had been dropped on it, but that it was hurt again by being “bumped” with a bale of bags. There was evidence that Thomas, during the last month of his service, said he had relieved the pain in his toe by cutting it with a knife or razor.

Sufficient reference to the evidence has been made to indicate that it involved a definite conflict upon the issue to he determined. There were two trials of the case in the court below, in the first of which the jury were unable to agree. At the second trial the jury found that the death of Thomas resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and in pursuance of that verdict the conclusion of the State Industrial Accident Commission to the same effect was affirmed. The question for present decision is whether the lower court committed any error in its rulings, which requires that the case he remanded for another trial.

The single issue on which the case was tried, as proposed on behalf of the claimants and granted by the court, was whether the death of Thomas was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. For the employer, issues were submitted which would have confined the jury to an inquiry as to whether the death was due to an injury sustained on December 31st, 1925. The refusal ⁶³⁴ of the court to grant issues in that form is the subject of the first exception. It was not essential to the allowance of the claim in this case that the alleged injury should be proved to have occurred on a particular date.

A reference in a submitted issue to a specified date would not be objectionable, if there were no conflict of evidence as to the time of the occurrence of the injury under investigation, and if the question were simply whether an admitted injury was compensable, as claimed, under the statute. This was true in the cases cited by the appellant as precedents for the form of issues which it proposed. Bramble v. Shields, 146 Md. 494 ; Dickson Construction Co. v. Beasley, 146 Md. 568 ; Slacum v. Jolley, 153 Md. 343 ; Standard Gas Equipment Corp. v. Baldwin, 152 Md. 321 . In the present case the material and decisive inquiry was whether the death of the employee resulted from an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that question was properly stated in the issue granted at the request of the claimants.

This Court has heretofore had occasion to say that, so far as practicable, only ultimate issues of fact should be submitted to the jury on appeals from decisions of the State Industrial Accident Commission. Schiller v. Balto. & O. R. Co., 137 Md. 235 ; Central Construction Co. v. Harrison, 137 Md. 256 . It was held in Owners’ Realty Co. v. Bailey, 153 Md. 274 , that an issue in the form of the one granted in this case was sufficient for the purposes of the real question to be decided, and that the additional issues proposed were superfluous and properly refused. Upon the evidence in this record the jury could find that Thoinas died in consequence of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, though the injury may have been inflicted on a date earlier than that mentioned in the issues which the employer wished to have granted.

The issue offered by the claimants could not properly have been rejected, and the granting of additional issues which sought merely to restrict the inquiry as to time would have presented a needless and inconclusive question. A ⁶³⁵ negative answer by the jury to the issues which the employer proffered would not have been