Baltimore v. Benedict Coal Corp.

29 S.E.2d 234, 182 Va. 446, 1944 Va. LEXIS 194
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedMarch 13, 1944
DocketRecord No. 2797
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 29 S.E.2d 234 (Baltimore v. Benedict Coal Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baltimore v. Benedict Coal Corp., 29 S.E.2d 234, 182 Va. 446, 1944 Va. LEXIS 194 (Va. 1944).

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Almeda Baltimore, for herself and dependent children, filed a claim with the Industrial Commission, seeking compensation for the death of her husband, Everett J. Baltimore. The application alleges that Everett Baltimore, an employee of appellee, came to his death as the" result of an accident arising out of and in the course of. his employment while engaged in work for appellee.

The full commission was present at a hearing which resulted in a two to one decision against the claim for compensation.

[448]*448The sole question involved in this appeal is whether or not there was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, which resulted in the death of Everett J. Baltimore.

The deceased was a young man twenty-eight years of age, weighing one hundred and thirty-seven pounds, and five feet, nine inches tall, who had never been sick in his life. The injury (allegedly, suffocation by carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases), occurred on February 28, 1942. Death occurred on March 1, 1942.

Deceased was an experienced miner who had been in the employ of appellee for a period of five years. On the day of the alleged accident he was working at number 11 mine, in room 17. This room was customarily supplied with air by means of a booster fan which had, however, not been in operation for approximately a week prior to the injury. On the day of the occurrence, five men, including deceased, were working in room 17. The deceased was engaged in the operation of an electric drill in a remote part of the room, at 2:30 p. m., when the alleged injury developed.

It appears in the evidence that the usual mode of operation in the mine is to cut the coal with an electric drill and then blast it with an explosive. The defendant, for the purpose of blasting the coal, used a chemical product sold under the trade name of Cardox, known as a permissive mine explosive. Cardox is liquid carbon dioxide which, upon sudden release, expands into a gaseous state, thus causing an explosion. Cardox is contained in cylinders approximately four feet in length by two inches in diameter, which are inserted into the coal and detonated by electric current. Following the explosion, the gas is discernible to the naked eye, and also following the detonation of the Cardox cylinders, certain quantities of gaseous carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other gases are released. There is evidence that carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas and has a greater chemical affinity for the hemoglobin of the blood than any other known gas.

[449]*449On the day of the injury to deceased there had been from ten to fifteen detonations of Cardox in chamber 17, the latest having occurred an hour to an hour and a half before the injury to the deceased. Electric machinery, such as the electric cutting machine and electric drill, was operated in the chamber following such blasts of Cardox. There was no way to rid the chamber of gas, except through its escape by such draft or air as was in the chamber.

It is conclusively shown that while operating the electric drill, as aforesaid, between 2:30 and 3 o’clock p. m., the deceased developed a severe headache; that he complained of it and, upon the advice of a fellow employee, stopped work and went, seeking relief, to the main current of air wh'ere he waited until the rest of the crew completed their work. When the men arrived at the coal conveyor they found Baltimore on his knees, throwing blocks of coal into the conveyor. He then complained of headache, became nauseated and tried to vomit. Along with the other men, Baltimore rode the conveyor out of the chamber, walked to the outside and got on the man car to ride down the decline. While on this journey he began to lean upon his arms and when he reached the foot of the decline he had lost muscular control of his legs and had to be assisted from the man car. He was placed in an automobile and conveyed to the Lee General Hospital at Pennington Gap, Virginia. Upon arrival at the hospital, his face became flushed, he had great difficulty in breathing, lapsed into unconsciousness and died at 7 o’clock the following morning. Two days after his death, E. A. Starling, a Kentucky mine inspector, made, or had made, a test of the blood of deceased ■ and though the blood had decomposed, he found a trace of carbon monoxide in the blood system.

In Molnar v. American Smelting, etc., Co., 127 N. J. L. 118, 21 A. (2d) 213, this is said:

“ * * the requirement that the injury or death arise by accident, * * is satisfied if the claimant discharges the burden of proving that the condition complained of, i. e., the [450]*450injury or death, is related to or affected by the employment, that is to say, if but for the employment it would not have occurred.”

In a dissenting opinion, Deans, Commissioner, set forth the following facts with which we are in thorough accord: Four witnesses testified that on the day of the injury the air in room 17 was bad; two witnesses testified as to the condition of Baltimore, viz., that he complained of headache and was nauseated; that when he left the mine he was unable to walk.

It further appears that one Luther Cox, foreman of appellee, was informed by the men working in room 17 that the air was bad, but, by his admission, nothing was done to alleviate the condition, as required by section 1855, (b), of the Code; that the booster fan was reinstated after the death of Baltimore; that on the day of the accident an electric machine and an electric drill were in operation.

The medical evidence introduced by appellee is as follows:

Though no post mortem was had, Dr. G. B. Setzler signed the death certificate, showing the cause of death as “Cerebral Edema; cause undetermined, duration February 28th,. 1942, 15 hours.”

Dr. B. C. Griggsby was asked: “Please explain the result of your investigation as to the amount of carbon monoxide necessary to cause ill effects, and from then on until death.”

His answer was: “A 25% concentration of carbon monoxide in the blood will give signs of beginning of carbon monoxide poisoning, and, if the saturation comes up to 75%, then the diagnosis is bad. And your first symptom that you get of carbon monoxide are headache, dizziness, nausea, occasionally vomiting; and then, as the saturation becomes greater, you get coma and unconsciousness and loss of voluntary and involuntary muscular control.”

He was also asked the following question and gave the following answer:

“Q. ' In view of your investigations on the subject and of your reading on the subject, please state, if the fact that [451]*451Everett J. Baltimore was unaccountably stricken for some reason and later dies, and the fact that other fellow workmen worked with him at the time, why they felt nothing more than, as one stated, a weakness.
“A. If the concentration was great enough to produce a fatal effect in that man, I do not see. why it did not affect the other men working with him.”

The medical evidence of appellant is based on the testimony of Dr. Frank E. Handy. Commissioner Deans epitomizes this evidence in this language:

“Dr. Frank E.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chesapeake Public Schools v. Larena Anderson
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2021
John O. Henry v. County of Henrico
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2012
County of Henrico v. John O. Henry
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2012
AM Liner East, Inc. v. Osburn
627 S.E.2d 516 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2006)
United Airlines, Inc. v. Sabol
624 S.E.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2006)
Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves
339 S.E.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1986)
Williams v. Fuqua
101 S.E.2d 562 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.E.2d 234, 182 Va. 446, 1944 Va. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltimore-v-benedict-coal-corp-va-1944.