Eaton v. Proctor
| Decision Date | 01 March 1932 |
| Parties | EATON v. PROCTOR et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Matthews, Judge.
Suit in equity by Ivory C. Eaton, administrator, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the death of Cecil B. Storer, opposed by Nathaniel Proctor and another. Case transferred upon defendants' exceptions to findings and rulings.
Bill dismissed.
Bill in equity, to recover compensation under Public Laws, chapter 178, for the death of Cecil B. Storer. The decedent was stricken with heart disease while about his work in the defendants' shop, and died of that disease some weeks later. Other facts appear in the opinion.
Doyle & Doyle and Ivory C. Eaton, all of Nashua, for plaintiff.
Wyman, Starr, Booth & Wadleigh, of Manchester (L. E. Wyman, of Manchester, orally), for defendants.
The defendants' position is that there can be no compensation because there was no accident. Conceding that there was a sudden manifestation of disease, sufficient within the rule laid down in Guay v. Brown, 83 N. H. 392, 142 A. 697, 60 A. L. B. 1284, it is said that the conclusion there reached is erroneous, because the English authorities therein relied upon do not express the true state of the English law in two respects.
It is said first that the interpretation of the term "accident" in its popular sense, as stated in Boody v. K. & C. Mfg. Co., 77 N. H. 208, 90 A. 859, L. R. A. 1916A, 10, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1280, where the English authority, Fenton v. Thorley, [1903] A. C. 443, is relied upon, should not have been adopted because a later decision by an Irish court declares that the term has long since ceased to have such meaning. Sherrin v. Clayton, [1910] 2 Ir. 105. The answer is that in 1914, in a case where seven law lords delivered individual opinions reaching diverse conclusions, each of them declared in terms that "accident" was used in the ordinary popular sense. Board of Trim Joint School District v. Kelly, [1914] A. C. 667.
The other point is that certain illustrative situations, stated arguendo in the last-cited case, go to support the conclusion that there must be an accidental cause, definite as to time and place. It may be added that some English cases in the lower courts sustain the same view. See 25 Harv. Law Rev. 342. But in 1927 the Court of Appeal had before it the situation which was not stated in the Kelly case, and which did not appear in the other cases just referred to. Causation was gradual, but subjective manifestation of results during the employment was sudden and unexpected....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delille v. Holton-Seelye Co.
... ... W. C. C. 419; Maxwell v. Ruabon Coal ... Co., 142 L. T. Jc. (Eng.) 146, 10 B. W. C. C. 138; ... Burns' Case, 266 Mass. 516, 165 N.E. 670; Eaton v ... Proctor, 159 A. 297; Standard Water Systems Co. v ... Ort, 166 A. 335; Wahlig v. Grocer Co., 29 ... S.W.2d 128; De Moss v. Evens & Howard ... ...
-
Zwiercan v. Int'l Shoe Co.
...Guay v. Brown Co., 83 N. H. 392, 142 A. 697, 60 A. L. R. 1284; Lybolt v. W. H. Hinman, Inc., 85 N. H. 262, 157 A. 579; Eaton v. Proctor, 85 N. H. 398, 159 A. 297. The remaining question is whether it arose out of the employment. This is to be determined under the rule quoted and adopted in ......
-
Thomson v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.
...and a considerable number of American cases on the same topic are cited. The further review of the English authorities in Eaton v. Proctor, 85 N. H. 398, 159 A. 297, was for the purpose of giving adequate consideration to the argument that the decision in the Guay Case rested in part at lea......
-
Walter v. Hagianis
...to correct it. Murphy's Case, Mass.1952, 103 N.E.2d 267. This evidence removed the case from the realm of speculation. Eaton v. Proctor, 85 N.H. 398, 399, 159 A. 297. It was enough that the accident produced the incapacity when and as it did, even though the same result might possibly have ......