Witt v. Marcum Drilling Company

New Mexico Supreme Court

Witt v. Marcum Drilling Company

389 P.2d 403, 73 N.M. 466

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 10, 1964

Docket7340

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 389 P.2d 403 (Witt v. Marcum Drilling Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Witt v. Marcum Drilling Company, 389 P.2d 403, 73 N.M. 466 (N.M. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

NOBLE, Justice.

Plaintiff (appellant) while an employee of defendants (appellees) sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his left arm below the elbow. This appeal is from a judgment denying workmen’s compensation benefits.

The trial court made only two findings of fact; one found the extent of the injury and the second that:

“The injury to the plaintiff did not arise out of his work, but did occur at a time which [sic] he was using a machine tool in violation of and contrary to instructions given him by his supervisor.”

Violation of specific instructions which limit the scope or sphere of work which an employee is authorized to do bars recovery of workmen’s compensation for an injury so sustained. Walker v. Woldridge, 58 N.M. 183, 268 P.2d 579.

Findings must be construed most strongly in support of the judgment, Martinez v. Scott, 70 N.M. 354, 374 P.2d 117; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 70 N.M. 11, 369 P.2d 398; Viramontes v. Fox, 65 N.M. 275, 335 P.2d 1071; Morrison v. Rodey, 65 N.M. 474, 340 P.2d 409; Totah Drilling Co. v. Abraham, 64 N.M. 380, 328 P.2d 1083, and the facts found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case rests in the appellate court, unless they are set aside as not having substantial support in the evidence. State ex rel. Bliss v. Davis, 63 N.M. 322, 319 P.2d 207; Rogers v. Stacy, 63 N.M. 317, 318 P.2d 1116; Lumpkins v. McPhee, 59 N.M. 442, 286 P.2d 299. It therefore follows that the judgment should be affirmed if the challenged finding has substantial support. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that there is evidence which substantially supports the finding by the trial court.

The conclusions of law adopted by the trial court follow from the facts found. We find no merit to the contention that they are erroneous.

Since recovery of compensation is a prerequisite to the allowance of attorney fees plaintiff’s request for such fees must be denied.

Finding no error the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.

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

NOBLE, Justice.

Plaintiff (appellant) while an employee of defendants (appellees) sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his left arm below the elbow. This appeal is from a judgment denying workmen’s compensation benefits.

The trial court made only two findings of fact; one found the extent of the injury and the second that:

“The injury to the plaintiff did not arise out of his work, but did occur at a time which [sic] he was using a machine tool in violation of and contrary to instructions given him by his supervisor.”

Violation of specific instructions which limit the scope or sphere of work which an employee is authorized to do bars recovery of workmen’s compensation for an injury so sustained. Walker v. Woldridge, 58 N.M. 183, 268 P.2d 579.

Findings must be construed most strongly in support of the judgment, Martinez v. Scott, 70 N.M. 354, 374 P.2d 117; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 70 N.M. 11, 369 P.2d 398; Viramontes v. Fox, 65 N.M. 275, 335 P.2d 1071; Morrison v. Rodey, 65 N.M. 474, 340 P.2d 409; Totah Drilling Co. v. Abraham, 64 N.M. 380, 328 P.2d 1083, and the facts found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case rests in the appellate court, unless they are set aside as not having substantial support in the evidence. State ex rel. Bliss v. Davis, 63 N.M. 322, 319 P.2d 207; Rogers v. Stacy, 63 N.M. 317, 318 P.2d 1116; Lumpkins v. McPhee, 59 N.M. 442, 286 P.2d 299. It therefore follows that the judgment should be affirmed if the challenged finding has substantial support. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that there is evidence which substantially supports the finding by the trial court.

The conclusions of law adopted by the trial court follow from the facts found. We find no merit to the contention that they are erroneous.

Since recovery of compensation is a prerequisite to the allowance of attorney fees plaintiff’s request for such fees must be denied.

Finding no error the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 P.2d 403, 73 N.M. 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witt-v-marcum-drilling-company-nm-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack