Drecksmith v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 20742.,20742.
• Citation: 18 S.W.2d 86
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: DRECKSMITH v. UNIVERSAL CARLOADING & DISTRIBUTING CO. et al.

18 S.W.2d 86

DRECKSMITH v.UNIVERSAL CARLOADING & DISTRIBUTING CO. et al.

No. 20742.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 4, 1929.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1929.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George E. Mix, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Edward Drecksmith against the Universal Carloading & Distributing Company and others.The award of the Commission was affirmed, and defendants appeal.Affirmed.

C. E. Klein, of St. Louis, for appellants.

H. Felthan Watson, of St. Louis, for respondent.

HAID, P. J.

This appeal from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a decision and order of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission involves the right of an employee to compensation for an aggravation of existing inguinal hernia.

The commission found as follows:

"Prior to the accident the inguinal canals and inner and outer rings of the employee were weakened, enlarged and relaxed on both sides of his body and on both sides there were protruding hernial sacs and contents which had never previously protruded beyond the outer rings.The strain and exertion of lifting the box in a cramped position caused a further protrusion on each side accompanied by a sharp pain and the appearance of the hernias beyond the external rings.

"The hernias existed prior to the accident and under section 17(b) no compensation is payable for permanent partial disability.

"There was a pre-existing condition aggravated by the accident.

"The aggravation of these hernias can be cured by an operation at an inconsiderable risk, and the employee is willing to undergo such operation."

And the commission ruled that:

"Where an accident aggravates a pre-existing hernia under section 17(b) of the Act no compensation is payable for permanent partial disability, and liability under the Act is limited to an operation for the hernia and compensation for such temporary disability as is caused by the operation."

The evidence showed that on March 14, 1927, Edward Drecksmith, the claimant, was in the employ of Universal Carloading & Distributing Company as a laborer, and, while lifting a box weighing around 130 pounds from the floor, assisted by a fellow employee, the box had been lifted about 3½ feet high (this was about 11:30 a. m.), he felt a sharp pain at this time.Drecksmith stated he did not slip in any way; that nothing slipped; that he lifted just as he always did.He continued to work until noon and after lunch, until about 2:30 p. m., when he called upon a doctor, who found he had a double hernia, one on the right side about the size of a hen's egg, one on the left side not so large.

The appellant has assigned a number of errors, which involve two propositions, first, whether the injury to claimant was the result of an accident within the meaning of the act, and, if so, was it compensable under the act.

Section 3 of the act(Laws 1927, p. 492) here presented is as follows:

"If both employer and employee have elected to accept the provisions of this act, the employer shall be liable irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this act for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and shall be released from all other liability therefor whatsoever, whether to the employee or any other person."

The act in section 7(b) also contains definitions of the words "accident,""injury," and "personal injuries," so much of which as is important here is as follows:

"(b) The word `accident' as used in this act 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.The term `injury' and `personal injuries' shall mean only violence to the physical structure of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom."

The provision of section 3 as defined by section 7(b) leads us to the conclusion that the Legislature meant by the use of the word "accident" to convey the idea that the injury must have been the result of some happening that would not ordinarily flow from the doing of a given act, and therefore unexpected or unforeseen, and consequently involving a result that was not anticipated and unintentional.

In the present case the employee was not aware that he was predisposed to hernia, and could not have been expected to anticipate that the act of lifting the box would bring about the protrusion which resulted.So far as he was concerned, there were present all the elements constituting an accident within the terms of the statute as defined therein.

There is a further reason for reaching this conclusion.Section 76 of the act provides that "all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed with a view to the public welfare," etc., evidently intending that the act shall be so construed as not to be unnecessarily restricted by a technical construction of the words used therein, but rather that such words be construed in the broader, popular sense.

We find support for our conclusion in many cases involving statutes similar to our own.

The English Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 declared that, "if in any employment to which this act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman," his employer shall be liable to pay compensation.In the case of Fenton v. Thorley & Co., Appeal Cases, Law Reports (1903) 443, the employee was engaged upon a machine used in preparing food.In the operation the employee was required to move a lever and turn the wheel for the purpose of raising the lid of the machine to remove the contents, an operation through which he had gone many times without difficulty.On the occasion in question, the wheel did not turn, and he called a fellow workman to his assistance, and the two men endeavored to move the wheel.Suddenly claimant felt something which he described as "a tear in his inside," and it was found that he was ruptured.He was a man of ordinary health and strength.There was no evidence of any slip or wrench or sudden jerk.During the course of his opinion Lord Macnaghten said:

"If a man, in lifting a weight or trying to move something not easily moved, were to strain a muscle, or rick his back, or rupture himself, the mishap in ordinary parlance would be described as an accident.Anybody would say that the man had met with an accident in lifting a weight, or trying to move something too heavy for him.

"One other remark I should like to make.It does seem to me extraordinary that anybody should suppose that when the advantage of insurance against accident at their employers'...