Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1957
• Docket Number: No. 46341,46341
• Citation: 307 S.W.2d 401
• Parties: W. C. CROW, Appellant, v. MISSOURI IMPLEMENT TRACTOR COMPANY and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 401

307 S.W.2d 401

W. C. CROW, Appellant, v. MISSOURI IMPLEMENT TRACTOR COMPANY and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents.

No. 46341.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Nov. 12, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1957.

Joslyn & Joslyn, L. D. Joslyn, T. B. Russell, Charleston, for appellant.

Hyde & Purcell, George R. Wilhoit, Jr., Poplar Bluff, for respondents.

WESTHUES, Judge.

W. C. Crow filed a claim for compensation which the Industrial Commission denied. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Mississippi County, the order denying compensation was affirmed. An appeal was granted to this court but for lack of jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals, 292 S.W.2d 573. That court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, 301 S.W.2d 423. On application of the claimant, the case was transferred to this court. The case was briefed and argued before this court at the September Session, 1957.

Before the case was argued, a motion was filed wherein it was stated that W. C. Crow died on August 28, 1957. It was also stated that Verda Crow is the widow and only dependent of W. C. Crow and she asked to be substituted as plaintiff-appellant. The motion was taken with the case. No objection was made to the request and the motion is hereby sustained and Verda Crow is hereby substituted as plaintiff-appellant in the place of W. C. Crow, deceased.

There is no dispute as to the material facts in the case. Crow was an employee of the Missouri Tractor Implement Company of Charleston, Missouri. This company was a dealer in farm implements. Crow's general duties were those of a foreman. On August 21, 1954, Crow was injured while aiding one of the other employees in adjusting an elevator of a cornpicking machine. The machine was new and due to paint on the equipment, the turnbuckle could not be turned and the elevator adjusted in the usual way. So, it was necessary to disengage the bail-crank links so the turnbuckle could be adjusted with a wrench. Disengaging the bail-crank links would remove the support of the elevator which was about 12 feet in length and extended at a 45-degree angle from the lower rear part of the corn picker. It was, therefore, necessary for some one to support the elevator while the turnbuckle and the bail-crank links were being adjusted. Crow placed himself under the elevator with upstretched arms in readiness to support the elevator while the other employee disengaged the bail-crank links from the sockets. When the last of the links was disengaged, the elevator was supported by Crow. The weight of this elevator was more than 150 lbs. Concerning the occurrence at the crucial time here involved, we quote from Crow's evidence:

'Q. After he took the first one out, describe what he then did? A. He pulled the cotter key on the other side and took the hammer and tapped that one out.

'Q. And when he tapped that one out was there anything, any part of the mechanism intact which would support the elevator? A. No, sir.

'Q. What happened when he tapped this latter elevator bail crank link out of the elevator bail crank? A. It dropped right on my hands and arms.

'Q. Just describe the effect at that time. A. It was just so heavy it felt like it pushed my shoulders down--my arms down in my shoulders. Hurt across the bottom of my chest.

'Q. What, if anything, was the effect at that time on the muscles on your legs and body, etc.? A. It was hard on them because I had more there than I could hold.

'Q. What did you do or say at that time? A. I said, 'You will have to hurry.'

'Q. Then what--do you have any idea how long it was before he was able to make the connection again? A. Oh, it could not have been over a minute or two. He hooked up the rod he had already adjusted.

'Q. Then after that occurred, that, if anything, did you do after he made the connection? A. After he made the connection, I went back to my office and sat down and stayed there, I guess for thirty minutes.'

Crow had been in good health before this incident. The evidence was that the strain experienced in holding the elevator caused Crow to suffer an acute coronary occlusion. For a more detailed statement of facts, see the opinion of the court of appeals, supra.

The full Industrial Commission made a finding of facts and conclusions of law which we quote in part as follows: '* * * We further find from all the evidence that the incident or events that occurred on August 21, 1954, while the employee was working for said employer, subjected employee to an abnormal strain or exertion, which we find caused the employee to sustain an acute coronary occlusion or thrombosis. * * * We further find from all the evidence that this employee, W. C. Crow, sustained an abnormal strain while holding up the elevator to an International two-row Corn Picker, Model No. 2-ME. We further find that this abnormal strain was not preceded or accompanied by any unusual or unexpected occurrence and, therefore, was not an accident as the same is defined by the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act and judicial decisions of said definition. Howard v. St. Louis Independent Packing Co., Mo.App., 260 S.W.2d 844; Kendrick v. Sheffield Steel Corp., Mo.App., 166 S.W.2d 590. Compensation, therefore, must be and the same is hereby denied.' It is conceded in this case that the evidence supported the finding of the Commission that Crow 'sustained an abnormal strain' and that it caused the claimant to suffer an acute coronary occlusion. The Commission's finding that the abnormal strain or exertion was not an accident was based on the cases cited by the Commission.

The question before us is whether an unusual or abnormal strain causing injury to a workman may be classified as an accident as that term is defined in the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 287, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The word 'accident' is defined as follows in Sec. 287.020, subd. 2: 'The word 'accident' as used in this chapter shall, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context, be construed to mean an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury.'

In the case of Howard v. St. Louis Independent Packing Co., Mo.App., 260 S.W.2d 844, 845, the claimant's duties were to carry quarters of beef from one point in the plant to another. On the occasion when the injury occurred, the employee felt a pain in his back at the very moment when a quarter of beef, which weighed more than the ordinary run, was placed on his shoulder. The Compensation Commission found there had been an accident and then specifically that the "Employee suffered unusual strain when a forequarter of beef struck his left shoulder with unusual force as he swung said beef on his shoulder." The St. Louis Court of Appeals ruled that 'where the injury results from the intentional act of the employee in exerting muscular force' it cannot be classified as an accident under the Compensation Act unless there is 'some unusual occurrence, such as a slip, or a fall, or an abnormal strain.' (Emphasis ours.) 260 S.W.2d loc. cit. 845(1). The following cases were cited in support of that statement: 'State ex rel. Hussman-Ligonier Co. v. Hughes, 348 Mo. 319, 153 S.W.2d 40; Kendrick v. Sheffield Steel Corporation, Mo.App., 166 S.W.2d 590; Screeton v. F. W. Woolworth Co., Mo.App., 166 S.W.2d 589; Sciortino v. E. Salia & Co., Mo.App., 157 S.W.2d 535; Palmer v. Knapp-Monarch Co., Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 341; Higbee v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Co., Mo.App., 191 S.W.2d 257.' The court then went on to say, 'In this case the employee admitted that there was no slip or fall, and that the routine he followed in swinging the beef away from him and in turning to receive it on his shoulder was the usual routine, and the same he had followed in all the years that he had been employed as a lugger. In fact, his only contention of anything out of the ordinary was that the forequarter came down upon his shoulder with 'an unusual force--more than ever before', which was accounted for by showing that the particular forequarter happened to be a bull forequarter weighing from 275 to 300 pounds according to the employee's testimony, or from 225 to 250 pounds according to the finding of the referee.' It is significant that in these comments, the court said there was no slip or fall but did not say there was no abnormal strain. The court reversed the judgment of the circuit court which had affirmed an order of the Commission allowing compensation.

The cases cited by the court of appeals in support of its ruling in the Howard case do not sustain the conclusions of the court that an abnormal strain without a slip or fall cannot be classified as an accident under the Compensation Act. We shall briefly review a number of those cases. In State ex rel. Hussman-Ligonier Co. v. Hughes, supra, the Commission had found that...