{ "id": 2804642, "name": "Henry W. SIMMONS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Simmons v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.", "decision_date": "1966-10-31", "docket_number": "No. 8148", "first_page": "100", "last_page": "102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.M. 100" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "419 P.2d 756" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "65 N.M. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2846856 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/65/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N.M. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566833 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/44/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2800260 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5346436 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 A.L.R.2d 933", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2852834 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 N.M. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2790248 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/69/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.M. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5321463 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/73/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2800947 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0320-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 366, "char_count": 4786, "ocr_confidence": 0.662, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.184765865984079e-08, "percentile": 0.3836881995822922 }, "sha256": "b740be1477bf0dff76ac596d1fb557779c3f9b832563d00df027628ef0c10aa1", "simhash": "1:a0f5dd29908b95dc", "word_count": 809 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ ". CARMODY, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Henry W. SIMMONS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nE. T. HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.\nThis action was filed by the plaintiff to recover benefits provided by the New Mexico Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nAt the close of the plaintiff\u2019s case the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff\u2019s complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to give notice of a compensable injury as required by Section 59-10-13.4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. The motion was sustained by the trial court and from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s complaint the plaintiff has brought this appeal.\nIt is not contended that written notice was given to the employer, hence only part B of the statute is applicable and it is as follows:\n\u201cSection 59-10-13.4, subd. B. No written notice is required to be given where the employer or any superintendent or foreman or other agent in charge of the work in connection with which the accident occurred had actual knowledge of its occurrence.\u201d\nThe appellant makes the sole contention that the defendant had knowledge of the occurrence of the accident and for that reason the ruling of the trial court was erroneous.\nA summary of the appellant\u2019s testimony relevant to notice, or actual knowledge, shows that the injury occurred on a Saturday morning as he was attempting to lift a buffer. He had never before attempted to lift the buffer unaided. He continued to work the remainder of the day and reported back for work on the following Tuesday, that being his next regular work day. On Tuesday he went to the office of his supervisor and the record reflects the following conversation as related by the appellant:\n\u201c * * * I told him how I had hurt my back lifting that buffer there on Saturday. He said \u2018Why?\u2019 and I said \u2018Well, because, I knew that I had to, I had to put it up.\u2019 He said \u2018Well, we will see what we can do about it. See if we can\u2019t fix something some way to get it over here.\u2019 That was all.\u201d\nThe comment made by the supervisor, if made, can b\u00e9 better understood in the light of other testimony by the appellant that the buffer had to he taken from one build\u25a0ing to another.\nAfter working for two or three days following his reported conversation with the supervisor, the appellant never again worked for the Appellee, and an exhibit before the court signed by the appellant and his doctor showed the reason for not reporting for work to be an illness of \u201cflu and sinus infection.\u201d This was the record before the trial court insofar as notice is concerned at the time of the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nThe appellant places reliance upon Frederick v. Younger Van Lines, 74 N.M. 320, 393 P.2d 438, in support of his contention that the trial court could not disregard evidence that is not contradicted. In advancing this argument the appellant overlooks the exhibit .referred to in the preceding paragraph.\nIn Frederick v. Younger Van Lines, supra, we again reiterated that a trial judge, when ruling on a motion to dismiss made at the close of the plaintiff\u2019s case, is not required to view plaintiff\u2019s testimony together with all reasonable inferences therefrom in its most favorable aspect for the plaintiff, but rather that the court weighs the testimony and applies its judgment thereto. The trial court having announced its findings and judgment we are now called upon to consider whether or not the findings are supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the findings. Blancett v. Homestake-Sapin Partners, 73 N.M. 47, 385 P.2d 568.\nHere the only evidence of notice was the casual conversation between the appellant and the supervisor. Thus, the facts of this case fall short of the evidence in support of notice that existed in Buffington v. Continental Casualty Co., 69 N.M. 365, 367 P.2d 539; Winter v. Roberson Construction Company, 70 N.M. 187, 372 P.2d 381, 96 A.L.R.2d 933; Lozano v. Archer, 71 N.M. 175, 376 P.2d 963. In those cases there were additional facts established following the verbal report that were indicative of actual knowledge.\nViewing the meager testimony relied upon by the appellant to show actual knowledge in the light of Scott v. General Equipment Company, 74 N.M. 73, 390 P.2d 660; Ogletree v. Jones, 44 N.M. 567, 106 P.2d 302; Copeland v. Black, 65 N.M. 214, 334 P.2d 1116, we reach the same conclusion arrived at by the trial court.\nThe judgment appealed from is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\n. CARMODY, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "E. T. HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals." } ], "attorneys": [ "Arturo G. Ortega, William E. Snead, Willard F. Kitts, Albuquerque, for appellant.", "Neal & Matkins, Carlsbad, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "419 P.2d 756\nHenry W. SIMMONS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 8148.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 31, 1966.\nArturo G. Ortega, William E. Snead, Willard F. Kitts, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nNeal & Matkins, Carlsbad, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0100-01", "first_page_order": 132, "last_page_order": 134 }