Kemna v. Industrial Commission

27 Ohio Law. Abs. 186, 12 Ohio Op. 144, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1162
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
DecidedApril 4, 1938
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ohio Law. Abs. 186 (Kemna v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kemna v. Industrial Commission, 27 Ohio Law. Abs. 186, 12 Ohio Op. 144, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1162 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1938).

Opinion

OPINION

By DEMPSEY, J.

This matter is before this court, on appeal from the Industrial Commission, 'of Ohio, which, after rehearing under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, denied the plaintiff’s claim, as widow, to participate ii: the State Insurance Fund, on the ground that the death of her deceased husband, Henry Kemna, was not “due to any accidental injury, sustained m the course of his employment.” The case was submitted to the court without a jury.

Said Henry Kemna, plaintiff’s deceased husbaud, had been an employee of The Cincinnati Coffin Company for some fifteen years prior to his death on July 26, 1934. For the first four or five years of his connection with the firm, he was a regular night watchman. Then, at his reouest, he was given day work, as a handyman in the press rooin, which also involved doing odd jobs and running errands throughout the plant. Moreover, whenever a regular night watchman wanted to take a night off, deceased would subsitiute for him.

On July 25, 1934, Cincinnati was in the midst of an extraordinary and severe “heat spell.” which had set in some four or five days before, and during which the official temperatures, in late afternoon, exceeded 100 degrees F. On that day deceased reported for work at the usual hour, between 7:30 and 8:00 A. M. He was instructed to get out the hose and sprinkle the cement sidewalk surrounding the plant, which occupies the major portion of a city plock. He was engaged at that employment steadily until about 10 A. M., 'at which time he was directed to wrap up the hose and go home to rest, as he was to report back at 6 P. M. that night to take the place of the regular night watchman, who would be off duty. Decedent complied with these orders and went to his home on Sherman avenue, in the closely built up west end basin of Cincinnati, not far from the plant. The temperatures in that area of the city are from four to five degrees higher than shown on the official weather reports, which readings are taken at the Abbe Meteorological Observatory, located in Clifton, one of the hilltop suburbs of Cincinnati. For that day, July 25, 1934, the official temperatures were as follows:

9 A. M. 83 degrees F.

10 A. M. 96 degrees F.

12 Noon 103 degrees F.

2 P.M. 107 degrees F.

■4 P.M. 98 degrees F.

6 P.M. 93 degress F.

8 P.M. 90 degress F.

10 P.M. 81? degress F.

Midnight 86 degrees F.

Said Henry Kemna reported back for duty as such night watchman at 6 P. M., on said July 25, 1934, and started to make the rounds. He had, in that capacity to cover, from cellar to top floor, the ten buildings ‘which comprised the plant; two of which were only one story high; eight of which were six stories high, and under four of which there was a basement. He had to patrol in the period of one. hour a distance of some 9,500 feet, which is close to two miles, through these ten buildings, up and down some twenty-four flights of stairs, and had to register at twenty-six clock stations. There was a rest period of thirty minutes allowed between the rounds. The decedent had made two complete circuits and all of the third one except two of the clock stations, when he was overcome. That was just prior to 10 P. M. An investigation, being made by reason of his failure to signal the last two call boxes, discovered him lying unconscious on the second floor of building No 3, at the foot of the stairs to the floor above. On said third floor, in said building No. 3, was the' hardware casting room, containing ten ovens or kettles for melting metal, and which during working hours was always of a temperature much in excess of 100 degrees F. Also, on the second floor of said building, and about thirty feet away lrom the spot where decedent was found, was the header room, into which the steam was piped from the boilers and then distributed throughout the plant for power and neating purposes. At that season only the pres[188]*188sure steam, or power line was in operation. This room, when the steam was on, had continuously a temperature lar in excess of 100 degress F. Furthermore, during the actual period of operation, by reason of the general use of steam throughout for power purposes, the prevailing temperature m the plant was in the neighborhood of 100 degrees F. However at 6 P. M. each working day, the fires were banked and at 8 P. M„ the steam pressure was cut off, thus giving rise to a cooling off of the plant. Decedent had worked under these conditions during the fifteen or more years that he was in the company’s service.

Said building No. 3, wherein decedent was overcome, was an interior unit of the plant, not opening out upon a public street, but upon area-ways between it and the other buildings of the plant ensemble. While the window openings contained no frames, sashes or. panes, they were closed at night, and at the time of decedent’s death, with sheet iron shutters.

When decedent was discovered to be unconscious, first aid was rendered, and then he was sent to the hospital. There his attending physician diagnosed his trouble as heat stroke, inasmuch as he was cyanotic, frothing at the mouth, and had a body temperature of 108 degrees F. He died, without regaining consciousness, at 2 A. M., on July 26, 1934. He was then about seventy-eight years of age. The hospital records and the death certiiicate showed the cause of death to have been heat exhaustion in conjunction with myocarditis. At all events, whether we call it heat stroke or heat exhaustion, Henry Kemna died from the effect of extreme external heat upon his bodily tissues, nerves and organs, and ¡rom the resultant inability to sufficiently eliminate Ins own body heat.

On that state of facts the Industrial Commission has taken the position that there is no compensible claim available to Henry Kemna’s widow, the plaintiff, on the ground that his death was not the result of an injury, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; was not accidental in nature; and did not arise out of the conditions of decedent’s employment.

First, on the question of injury; there was in this case no external trauma; no blow, cut or other apparent violence from the outside. Such, however, is not a necessary condition precedent to recovery of compensation under the Ohio Act. Industrial Commission v Tolson, 37 Oh Ap 282; Industrial Commission v Smith, 45 Oh Ap 362; Davis v American Rolling Mill Co, 54 Oh Ap 298, 7 OO 443; Cornett v Industrial Commission, 20 Abs 364; Industrial Commission v Palmer, 126 Oh St 251; Industrial Commission v Bartholome, 128 Oh St 13.

Where the employee, while engaged in the performance of the duties of his job, is subjected to an unusual condition, destructive in nature, and definite as to time and place, which causes him physical damage, he has suffered an injury, within the terms of -the law, even though there be no mark of such hurt on his body, or any other indication exterior thereto. Castings Co v McNeeley, 21 Oh Ap 148; Industrial Commission v Hineline, 47 Oh Ap 50; Esmonde v Locomotive Works 51 Oh Ap 454, 5 OO 415; Industrial Commission v Polcen, 121 Oh St 377.

Here the decedent was overcome while at work in the plant, in a place where his job then compelled him to be, and under conditions of employment then and there quite out of the ordinary as to temperature; and potential of harm to the human system.

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

Related

Ford Motor Co. v. Hunter
199 N.E. 85 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935)
Industrial Commission v. Kovacs
10 Ohio Law. Abs. 248 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1931)
Cornett v. Industrial Commission
20 Ohio Law. Abs. 364 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ohio Law. Abs. 186, 12 Ohio Op. 144, 1938 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemna-v-industrial-commission-ohctcomplhamilt-1938.