 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maze v. Bowater Inc.5/7/1999
REL: 05/07/1999 MAZE
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
Patrick Maze sued his employer, Bowater, Inc., to recover workers' compensation benefits. Bowater answered, saying Maze was not entitled to benefits because his injuries, Bowater said, were caused by his own willful misconduct and his willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance that Bowater had supplied him. The parties agreed to submit the issue of Bowater's liability to the trial court for its decision based upon depositions, documentary evidence, and affidavits. After considering the evidence submitted, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Bowater, finding that Maze's injury had been caused by his own willful refusal to follow safety rules. Maze appeals.
The standard of review this court must apply in this case is derived from § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975, which provides: "In reviewing the standard of proof set forth herein and other legal issues, review by the Court of Civil Appeals shall be without a presumption of correctness." Furthermore, the Workers' Compensation Act provides that "in reviewing pure findings of fact, the finding of the circuit court shall not be reversed if that finding is supported by substantial evidence." § 25-5-81(e)(2). The Alabama Supreme Court has defined "substantial evidence" as "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So. 2d 262, 268 (Ala. 1996).
The record tends to show the following. On February 4, 1998, Maze was working at his job at Bowater when he put his hand into a running conveyor system to dislodge a piece of wood that had jammed in the system. When the piece of wood came free, Maze's left hand was pinched between the wood and the top of the conveyor housing. He sustained a severe injury to his left hand as a result of the accident.
Bowater said Maze violated a procedure, known as the "lock-out procedure," that Bowater said it had adopted for use on machines to be repaired or maintained. The procedure, which is required by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), called for an employee to turn off the machine to be worked on, and to place a padlock on the machine to prevent it from being turned on while it was being worked on. Bowater provided each employee with a padlock, and each was required to use his padlock and to follow the lock-out procedure any time he was working on or in a machine. Any employee who failed to follow the lock-out procedure was subject to disciplinary action.
Maze said he knew of the lock-out procedure; however, he said, he believed that it was up to each employee to use his judgment to determine when to use it. In his deposition, Maze said that on the day he was injured, he "did not feel like [the machine] needed to be shut off" before he tried to dislodge the jammed piece of wood.
Section 25-5-51, Ala. Code 1975, provides in pertinent part:
"If an employer is subject to this article, compensation, according to the schedules hereinafter contained, shall be paid by the employer, or those conducting the business during bankruptcy or insolvency,
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|