 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. ARD Contracting12/17/2004
people come in all the time and report little things.
"[Jones's counsel:] So you did have the report of injury, but you didn't fill out a written report, correct?
"[Ellis:] Right."
ARD's counsel followed the above testimony with the following:
"[ARD's counsel:] Again, just to clarify, when Mr. Jones came in with his mother on that Saturday saying his arm and/or back was hurt, he didn't specifically say: 'And I injured it a couple of days ago on the 17th taking those forms off the wall?'
"[Ellis:] No.
"[ARD's counsel:] Because if he had, well, first of all, you would have filled out a first report of injury?
"[Ellis:] Correct."
Finally, Jones's counsel finished this line of questioning of Ellis:
"[Jones's counsel:] Well, Mr. Jones did indicate to you that he had some sort of injury, correct?
"[Ellis:] Correct.
"[Jones's counsel:] And you had some notice that this injury might have occurred on the job , correct?
"[Ellis:] Yeah."
From the totality of the above testimony it is clear that Jones informed Ellis that he had injured his back while on the job . It is also evident, as the trial court found, that Jones did not inform Ellis of the exact date or time of his injury. However, "' f ... the employer has some information connecting work activity with an injury, it may be put on reasonable notice to investigate further.'" Davis v. Paragon Builders, 652 So. 2d 762, 764 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (quoting Russell Coal Co. v. Williams, 550 So. 2d 1007, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989)). In this case, we conclude that Jones provided Ellis with enough information to put ARD on notice that it should investigate the injury further.
Ellis understood Jones's claim that he had injured his back while on the job ; he testified that Jones had come into work on Saturday, February 20, 1999, and told Ellis about the back injury; and he admitted that after Jones told him about the injury "usually at that point we would fill out a first report [of injury]" but that he had not done so because of his own judgment that Jones did not make a big deal out of the injury. The information Jones provided to Ellis was sufficient to give ARD "actual knowledge" sufficient to "put a reasonable man on inquiry" of a work-related injury. Premdor Corp., supra. Actual notice should provide the employer "the opportunity for investigation of the accident and injury and to protect against simulated and exaggerated claims." Beatrice Foods Co. v. Clemons, 54 Ala. App. 150, 153, 306 So. 2d 18, 20-21 (Civ. App. 1975). Jones's oral notice did just that, putting the employer on notice that the injury had occurred at work and within a few days prior to the time notice was given. See Davis, supra. Even minimal further investigation would have revealed the exact date on which Jones claimed he had injured his back.
We conclude that the oral notice provided by Jones to Ellis was sufficient to meet the threshold notice requirements imposed by applicable precedent of our Supreme Court and this court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Yates, P.J., and Crawley, Thompson, and Pittman, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|