Harrell v. J. S. Frank Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Harrell v. J. S. Frank Construction Co.

502 P.2d 762, 210 Kan. 548

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 4, 1972

Docket46,746

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 502 P.2d 762 (Harrell v. J. S. Frank Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrell v. J. S. Frank Construction Co., 502 P.2d 762, 210 Kan. 548 (kan 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal in a workmens compensation case. The district court reversed the award entered in favor of the claimant-appellant by the examiner which was affirmed by the director, and entered judgment in favor of the employer and its insurance carrier, the appellees. In so doing, the court made a negative finding that the claimant did not sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Whether the disability of a workman is due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact and the district court’s determination will not be disturbed by this court when there is substantial competent evidence to sustain it. (Callahan v. Eby Construction Co., 192 Kan. 814, 391 P. 2d 315.) Further, this court will seldom set aside a negative finding of a district court if the evidence is limited in quantity and its weight and credibility may be questionable, or if the evidence may be disregarded for any reason. (Schmidt v. Jensen Motors, Inc., 208 Kan. 182, 490 P. 2d 383.)

Although the evidence was conflicting on the question whether appellant sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, we conclude there is ample substantial competent evidence in the record to sustain the district court’s judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal in a workmens compensation case. The district court reversed the award entered in favor of the claimant-appellant by the examiner which was affirmed by the director, and entered judgment in favor of the employer and its insurance carrier, the appellees. In so doing, the court made a negative finding that the claimant did not sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Whether the disability of a workman is due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact and the district court’s determination will not be disturbed by this court when there is substantial competent evidence to sustain it. (Callahan v. Eby Construction Co., 192 Kan. 814, 391 P. 2d 315.) Further, this court will seldom set aside a negative finding of a district court if the evidence is limited in quantity and its weight and credibility may be questionable, or if the evidence may be disregarded for any reason. (Schmidt v. Jensen Motors, Inc., 208 Kan. 182, 490 P. 2d 383.)

Although the evidence was conflicting on the question whether appellant sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, we conclude there is ample substantial competent evidence in the record to sustain the district court’s judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 P.2d 762, 210 Kan. 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-j-s-frank-construction-co-kan-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack