{ "id": 5328632, "name": "Annie QUINTANA, Widow of Nazario L. Quintana, Jr., on behalf of herself and Orlando A. Quintana, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EAST LAS VEGAS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, insurer, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Quintana v. East Las Vegas Municipal School District", "decision_date": "1971-03-19", "docket_number": "No. 530", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "465", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 N.M. 462" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "483 P.2d 936" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "81 N.M. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5363052 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2853025 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 P.2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 2775732, 2776229 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/63/0148-01", "/nm/63/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 N.M. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2775732 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/63/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5326184 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0072-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 515, "char_count": 9713, "ocr_confidence": 0.693, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2572052029778853e-07, "percentile": 0.7822338290765215 }, "sha256": "3e9c189fdf9b5947fc489b50ba77219491a2941b0f30b199d16231e05ac2ad59", "simhash": "1:e348361e995cdc78", "word_count": 1581 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:32.756560+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SPIESS, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Annie QUINTANA, Widow of Nazario L. Quintana, Jr., on behalf of herself and Orlando A. Quintana, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EAST LAS VEGAS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, insurer, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendants appeal from a judgment awarding claimants, employee\u2019s widow and minor son, an additional award of 10% of the amounts defendants were paying plaintiffs because of defendant employer\u2019s failure to provide a safety device, namely, insulated rubber gloves. Defendants give three points for reversal. '\nWe affirm.\nThe decedent was employed as a maintenance man for defendant-employer. On the day of the fatal'accident, decedent and a fellow employee were directed to remove some bell wires running between two school buildings and supported by two.poles\".' The poles belonged to Public Service Company and were used as .high, voltage electrical distribution lines. The bell wire,, when working, carried 24 volts but was being removed because it did not work.\u2019 During the course of removing the bell wire decedent came in contact with\"'the High-voltage electrical distribution lilies arid was electrocuted. \u25a0 . \" \" \u2019 \u2019\nThe trial court found that:\n\u201c4. That in the regular course. of his duties said decedent Was frequently assigned to work with electrical wires maintained by the defendant-employer and which were strung on poles belonging to the Public Service Company of New Mexico, and which poles carried the high voltage power lines of that company\u2019s electrical distribution system.\n\u201c5. That decedent\u2019s fatal injuries were suffered while he was working on the electrical wires of defendant-employer on the poles of the Public Service Company ,of New Mexico, to which task he has been specifically assigned by his immediate supervisor, and that his injuries and death\u2019 were caused by the failure of defendant-employer to provide a reasonable safey device, to wit: insulated rubber gloves, the same being in general use for the protection of workmen working on poles carrying high voltage power lines, and that the poles on which decedent was so working carried high voltage power lines, and that defendant-employer at all times material hereto knew that said poles carried said high voltage power lines.\u201d\nDefendants challenge these findings on the grounds that they were not supported by substantial evidence.\nSection 59-10-7 B, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1) states:\n\u201cB. In case an injury to, or death of a workman results from the failure of an employer to provide safety devises required by law, or in any industry in which safety devices are not prescribed by statute, if an injury to, or death of, a workman results from the negligence of the employer in failing to supply reasonable safety devices in general use for the use or protection of the workman, then the compensation otherwise payable under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act shall be increased ten per cent [10%].\u201d\nIn reviewing workmen compensation cases we consider only evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to support the findings. Adams v. Loffland Brothers Drilling Company, 82 N.M. 72, 475 P.2d 466 (Ct.App.1970).\nIn attacking the above findings and in asserting the trial court should have adopted their requested findings, defendants raise questions (1) as to the \u201cindustry\u201d in which decedent was engaged and (2) failure to provide a safety device in general use in that industry.\nIt is undisputed that decedent, employed as a maintenance man, worked on bell wires which were near high voltage power lines. There is no evidence that working on high voltage lines was a part of decedent\u2019s duties. The distinction defendants would have us make is between working near and working on the high voltage lines. On the basis that the \u201cindustry\u201d in which decedent was engaged was working \u201cnear\u201d high voltage lines, defendants say there is no evidence that the safety device involved\u2014insulated gloves\u2014was in general use in that industry. The evidence, according to defendants, is-that the insulated gloves were in general use only where the employee worked \u201con\u201d' high voltage lines.\nThe narrow meaning that defendants ascribe to \u201cindustry\u201d is contrary to Briggs v. Zia Company, 63 N.M. 148, 315 P.2d 217 (1957) where it is stated that \u201c[t]o' narrow the term \u2018industry\u2019 to specific examples of uses * * * would be too-restricted.\u201d Consistent with Briggs, the \u201cindustry\u201d involved here is not work near a high voltage line and is not work on a high voltage line, but work exposing the decedent to the dangers of high voltage lines.\nWith this definition of \u201cindustry,\u201d the question is whether the insulated gloves, were a reasonable safety device \u201c * * * in general use for the use or protection of the workmen. * * * \u201d Section 59-10-7 B, supra.\nThere is evidence that the gloves-were a safety device for \u201c * * * workmen who are working around such lines * * * \u201d and evidence that they are in \u201cgeneral use\u201d for working \u201con\u201d such lines. See Romero v. H. A. Lott, Inc., 70 N.M. 40, 369 P.2d 777 (1962). This evidence-permits the inference and sustains the finding that the gloves were \u201cin general use for-the protection of workmen working on poles carrying high voltage lines.\u201d\nDefendant next contends that FindingNo. 5 is not supported by substantial evidence in that it was not established that the failure to furnish insulated rubber gloves was the cause of the employee\u2019s death. Defendants rely on the testimony of Dr. Blough regarding the location of decedent\u2019s burns. There were burns over the right shoulder, the front aspect of the right and left elbow, the web space between the thumb and index finger of the right hand, and near the tips of the thumb and index finger of the left hand.\nDefendants state that their submitted and refused Finding No. 5 was proper. It stated:\n\u201cNo evidence was adduced that failure to provide insulated rubber gloves was the cause of the workman\u2019s death.\u201d\nDefendants further state that \u201cdeath could have been caused by any of the burns received by the decedent and there is no evidence in the record to establish the necessary causal connection.\u201d\nThis court does not weigh conflicting evidence or credibility of witnesses but will only view such evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom as will support the findings. Forrest Currell Lumber Company v. Thomas, 81 N.M. 161, 464 P.2d 891 (1970).\nThere was evidence direct and circumstantial from which the trial court could draw a reasonable inference that the lack of gloves was the causal connection. There was testimony that the distance between the bell wire and the high voltage line was 18 to 20 inches; that from the position of the ladder against the pole one\u2019s head and shoulders would not come in contact with the high voltage line; that one could reach out and touch the line \u201cif you stretch.\u201d There was testimony that when decedent was first seen after the electric shock he was standing on the ladder with his arms outstretched. There was testimony that if wearing the insulated gloves one\u2019s hands and a short ways up the arm would be protected. From this evidence the trial court could infer that decedent first came into contact with the high voltage line when he reached out with his ungloved hands.\nDefendants\u2019 third point is that for plaintiffs to recover under \u00a7 59-10-7 B, supra, they must prove a causal connection, to a medical probability, as required in \u00a7 59 \u2014 10\u2014 13.3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1). Since plaintiffs introduced no medical testimony they say such proof is lacking.\nWhat defendants seek to do is incorporate the requirements of \u00a7 59-10-13.3, supra, into \u00a7 59-10-7 B, supra. Specifically, they claim they are not liable for additional compensation for failure to supply reasonable safety devices, when they deny that liability, unless plaintiffs prove as a medical probability, that the cause of decedent\u2019s fatal injury was the failure to provide the reasonable safety devices. Applying this contention to the facts, they claim we can only speculate as to which of the burns caused the death and, therefore, there is no proof that burns resulting from absence of the gloves caused decedent\u2019s death.\nThe medical probability requirement of \u00a7 59-10-13.3, supra, applies where it is denied that the disability (here, the death) is the natural and direct result of the accident. Medical probability under \u00a7 59 \u2014 10\u2014 13.3, supra, was not involved in this case because defendants admitted the causal connection between the accident and the death. Section 59-10-7 B, supra, does not go to the causal relationship between the death and the accident. It goes to the causal relation between the death and the failure to supply reasonable safety devices. Section 59-10-7 B, supra, does not require the causal relation between the death and the lack of safety devices to be proved to a medical probability. Nor can we incorporate such a requirement by equating the accident (which is coming into contact with the high voltage lines) with lack of the safety device (which is the absence of the insulated gloves). Such an equation is not permissible because they are different matters. There is no merit to this contention.\nThe award of compensation is affirmed with an additional award to plaintiff of $1,250.00 for the services of his attorney in this appeal. Section 59-10-23 D, N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1).\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HENDLEY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Frank Andrews, III, Montgomery, Federici, Andrews, Hannahs & Morris, Santa Fe, for appellant.", "Donald A. Martinez, Las Vegas, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "483 P.2d 936\nAnnie QUINTANA, Widow of Nazario L. Quintana, Jr., on behalf of herself and Orlando A. Quintana, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EAST LAS VEGAS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, insurer, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 530.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 19, 1971.\nFrank Andrews, III, Montgomery, Federici, Andrews, Hannahs & Morris, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nDonald A. Martinez, Las Vegas, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 518, "last_page_order": 521 }