195 Wis. 267 | Wis. | 1928
The question here presented is': Was there any credible evidence from which the Industrial Commission could find the death of the workman resulted from injuries growing out of his work? The Commission did not find the exact nature of the injury, but found that the employee came to his death by reason of an injury received by him while he was engaged in performing service for the employer.
A post-mortem examination disclosed conditions from which it appeared that deceased might have come to his death from electric shock. Doctors so testified, but none would testify positively as to the cause of death.
The Industrial Commission made exhaustive inquiry into the cause of death, and found deceased came to his death from injury received in the course of his employment.
We think the Commission was clearly justified in so finding. The circumstances were very significant from which the reasonable inference followed that death was so caused. Here was a man,, thirty-four years of age, previously in good health, working in a wet place, with his clothing and shoes all wet, in close proximity to an electric current which, if the sockets wfere touched by him, was easily carried to his body. His symptoms were consistent with electric shock, and the post-mortem disclosed a condition consistent with death from electric shock. It is significant that the first thing done by a fellow workman before rendering aid was to turn off the electric current running to the electric light sockets in the post.
We need not further consider the evidence, as it is only necessary to find that there was some credible evidence from which the Commission might make the necessary findings of fact. The Commission is an expert body dealing with industrial accidents and their causes. Their findings in a case of this kind are, entitled to great weight, and the statute makes them, final in the absence of fraud. Under the law the circuit court can reverse the award of the Commission on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence, only when there is no evidence before the Commis
It follows that the circuit court was in error in vacating .the award of the Commission.
By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, with directions to enter judgment affirming the award of the Industrial Commission.