Md. Cas. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n

Citations

• 178 Cal. 491

Syllabus

<p>Workmen’s Compensation Act—Review op Award—Irregularities or Errors in Procedure.—The granting by the Industrial Accident Commission of a rehearing, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, in violation of its own rule, requiring such evidence to be set out in detail in the application for a rehearing, and the taking of further evidence without solicitation from either party, being mere matters of procedure, and not going to the jurisdiction of the commission to make awards, are not grounds upon which the supreme court can vacate an award.</p> <p>Id.—Incompetent Evidence.—The supreme court cannot set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Commission because of the admission of incompetent evidence, provided there is enough competent evidence to uphold the same.</p> <p>2d.—Insurance—Construction op Policy—“General Farm Work, Excluding Operation op Farm Machinery.”—An insurance policy binding the insurer to pay all sums due from an employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Law because of any injury to employees “engaged in general farm work, excluding the operation of farm machinery,”1 covered an injury causing the death of an employee who was struck by a bar attached to a disk harrow, which, in the course of farming operations, was being pulled in the nighttime by an engine, it appearing that the deceased was not operating the engine but was standing in the field and using a lantern to guide the engineer who operated the machine.</p> <p>Id.—Uncertainty in Policy—Construction Against Insurer.—If in . such ease the words “excluding the operation of farm machinery” are of uncertain import, then, under section 1654 of the Civil Code, the contract is to be construed most strongly against the insurer, who drew the policy and caused the uncertainty to exist.</p>