Giachas v. Cable Co.

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 1*—construction. Where the trial court held at the instance of an employer that there could be no recovery under clause C of the Compensation Act of 1911 (Hurd’s R. S. 1913, ch. 48, § 126, J. & A. If 5449), but recovery must be had, if at all, under clauses b and d, the employer cannot, and did not in the case at bar, question that basis of computing damages.</p> <p>2. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 7*—effect of offer of employment. In an action for the loss of an arm under a compensation act, where the claimant is still unemployed but was offered employment by defendant, but not permanent or for any definite period, such an offer pending litigation is not entitled to much weight on the question of probable future earnings.</p> <p>3. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 8*—amount of award. Where under clause d of the Compensation Act of 1911 (Hurd’s R. S. 1913, ch. 48, § 126, J. & A. If 5449) the time on which to compute recovery is practically seven and one-half years, the rate is $709.95 a year, the amount to be earned on that basis is $3,824.53, half of which is $1,912.26,- a finding of the court for $1,749.90, which was reached by deducting from the sum of $1,912.26, what in the opinion of the court plaintiff would be able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident in that period of seven and a half years, and adding to the amount so obtained the sum due under clause b; and whatever defendant might be found liable for on the doctor’s bill of $225, stipulated to be reasonable, will not be disturbed by an Appellate Court, as it is peculiarly a case where the judgment of the trial court, who had the man before it, should stand, unless clearly wrong, since the question of probable future earnings leads into the field of conjecture and speculation.</p> <p>4. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 7*—elements of compensation. Evidence as to pain and suffering of a petitioner for compensation for the loss of an arm, although it probably should have been excluded had it been a jury trial, held not prejudicial in a trial to the court.</p> <p>5. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 8*—future earning capacity in arriving at award. In an action under a compensation act for loss of an arm, where the court refused to hear the testimony of one-armed men produced by defendant as to how they had prospered despite the disability, and heard testimony introduced by plaintiff, over objection, to the effect that the loss of an arm is a serious disadvantage in the business world in obtaining employment, held not to be erroneous in excluding the first, and if erroneous in admitting the second, it was of no consequence in influencing the court’s finding, as what a one-armed man may do is a matter of common knowledge.</p>