Dainty v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.

Citations

• 263 Pa. 109
• 106 A. 194
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 380

Syllabus

<p>Workmen’s compensation — Course of employment — Findings— Appeal — Act of June 8,1915, P. L. 786.</p> <p>1. The mere fact that each finding of a referee in proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is not formally labelled by him, as a finding of fact or conclusion of law, in no way changes their actual character.</p> <p>2. Where a series of facts are found by the referee, showing, in themselves, that an employee was injured upon the premises of his employer, the lack of a formally stated conclusion that the injury so occurred, is not fatal to the referee’s adjudication.</p> <p>3. In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to recover damages for the death of a locomotive engineer, where it is claimed that the deceased had been discharged from the employment for the night, shortly before the accident, and the referee and the Workmen’s Compensation Board, after considering what was said and done at the time of the alleged dismissal, together with all the attending circumstances, concluded that deceased had neither been discharged nor quit his job, it is reversible error for the Court of Common Pleas, on appeal, to set aside such decision.</p>