Red Star Motor Coaches, Inc. v. Chatham

⁴¹³ Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Paul Lester Chatham, the husband of the appellee, claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code, art. 101, sec. 1 et seq., as amended), was found dead in the garage of the appellant, his employer, a short time after the schedule time for the departure of the bus of which he was the driver. The motor of the bus was running, and all the doors and windows of the garage were closed. The testimony of the physicians was that the cause of his death was carbon monoxide gas poisoning.

The case was heard by the commission on two issues: (1) Did the accident arise in and out of the1 course of the deceased’s employment? (2) Was it the result of wilful misconduct ? The commission decided in favor of the claimant on the first issue, and against her on the second. On appeal to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, the only issue submitted to the jury was that of wilful misconduct.

It was submitted on the record from the commission. The court granted a prayer of claimant that, if the jury find that the death of Chatham resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and was not due to any wilful misconduct on his part, their verdict under the issue submitted should be for the claimant and their answer to the issue must be “Ho.” And the court refused the first and second prayers of the defendant for a directed verdict. The first prayer asked for an instruction that there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the second, that the uncontradicted evidence in the case showed that the death of Chatham wras due to wilful misconduct on his part. It granted for the defendant the two- following prayers: “The court instructs the jury that the State Industrial Accident Commission by its order dated September 22, 1931, determined that the death of Paul L. Chatham was the result of wilful misconduct on his part and fox that reason the said State Industrial Accident Commission disallowed the claim of the plaintiff in this case, Mary C. Chatham, and that the said decision of the said Commission is prima- fa-cie ⁴¹⁴ correct, and. the burden is upon the plaintiff, Mary C. Chatham, to show by a preponderance of evidence that the death of Paul L. Chatham was not due to wilful misconduct on his party and if the minds of the jury are in a state of even balance as to- whether or not the death of the said Paul E. Chatham was or was not due to wilful misconduct on his part, then the verdict of the jury must be ‘Yes.’ ” “The court instructs the jury that if they shall find from the evidence that a rule and regulations of Red Star Lines, Incorporated, the employer of the deceased, Paul L. Chatham, prohibited operators of the employer’s motor vehicles from starting the motors in such vehicles in garages when the doors thereof were closed, and if they shall further find from the evidence that the deceased had knowledge of said rule and regulations, and if they shall further find from the evidence that the death of the said deceased was caused by the starting of a motor vehicle of his employer while the same was stored in a garage at Crisfield, Maryland, with the doors thereof closed, and if they shall further find from the evidence that such action on the part of the deceased was in violation of the aforesaid rule and regulations of his said employer, then the jury may find that the death of the said deceased resulted from wilful misconduct on his part, and if they so find, their verdict must be ‘Yes.’ ” The jury found for the claimant on that issue, on which finding judgment was entered, hence this appeal.

The exceptions were to the granting of claimant’s prayer and the refusal of defendant’s first and second prayers. .The only objection urged is the refusal of the court to withdraw the case from the jury. We find no error in the refusal of the court to rule as a matter of law that the deceased was guilty of wilful misconduct or in granting claimant’s prayer. Of course, we are not required to pass on the granted prayers of defendant.- In addition to the testimony as to the cause of death, the defendant offered testimony tending to show that the rules of the company forbade sleeping in the garage and the starting of the motor when the doors and windows were closed, ⁴¹⁵ although it appears that these rules had not at that time been posted, and it is not certain that the deceased was ever personally advised of them. It is. true the superintendent testified as follows: “Q. Can you state whether you personally ever communicated these rules to Mr. Chatham?

A. Yes, I did. Q. How many times would you say? A. Mr. Chatham was in our employ about seven months and during that time I don’t think the rule was ever posted. I told him it is a violation of the rules of the company for any man to sleep in a bus over night or to have the motor running in a closed garage due to the danger of being overcome, and pointed out the danger of it; as I was telling him it was a violation of the