General Properties Co. v. Greening

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtAuthor: Brown
Citation154 Fla. 814,18 So.2d 908
Decision Date01 August 1944
PartiesGENERAL PROPERTIES CO., Inc., et al., v. GREENING et al.

18 So.2d 908

154 Fla. 814

GENERAL PROPERTIES CO., Inc., et al.,
v.

GREENING et al.

Florida Supreme Court

August 1, 1944


Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Marshall C. Wiseheart, judge.

McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette and A. Lee Bradford, all of Miami, for appellants.

William D. Barfield, of Jacksonville, and Raymond E. Barnes, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

BROWN, Justice.

There being a difference of opinion among the Justices before whom this case was argued, the Chief Justice has [154 Fla. 815] assigned the case to me for consideration and the written expression of my views.

Appellee Greening was employed as a general helper in the kitchen of the Roney Plaza Hotel. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon of May 31, 1943, he lifted, without any help, two barrels of cracked ice, weighing from about 140 to 150 pounds each, onto a fourwheeled 'dolly' or truck, the platform of which was 8 to 12 inches above the floor, and, hauling the truck, he distributed the ice to different places in the hotel. In a written statement signed by him a week later he stated that the barrels of cracked ice weighed from 100 to 150 pounds each. When testifying as a witness (and the only witness in the case) he said that he had read the written statement and that it was correct. In the written statement, he did not mention lifting any garbage cans, but while testifying as a witness, he said that after he got the ice, he went around and picked up some galvanized garbage cans, the weight of which he did not know, but that they were 'mighty heavy.' He said that he did not feel any pain when he was lifting the barrels of ice or the garbage cans, and that it was not [18 So.2d 909] until after he had eaten supper, about 6 o'clock p. m. (some four hours after he had lifted the barrels of ice), as he was walking from the table to the washing room, that he felt a 'sharp tingling pain' in his right groin, which only lasted a few minutes, but returned several times between then and 8 p. m. He mentioned this pain to the kitchen steward and he got some one else to mop the kitchen floor, which appellees usually did. He went to bed about 9:45, and sometime during the night he waked up with a severe pain in his right groin and noticed a lump about the size of a pecan. That he only got short naps the balance of the night, and next day he was examined by Dr. White, who said witness had a hernia, and would have to be operated on. In his written statement, witness said that he had been operated on fifteen years before this for hernia on his left side, but that he had never had any pain, swelling, protrusion or disorder of any kind in his right groin until May 31, 1943, as above related.

While testifying, the deputy commissioner asked appellee [154 Fla. 816] this question: 'When did you have an accident?' and his answer was: 'Well, I didn't have an accident. The only thing was lifting those cans around two o'clock in the afternoon.'

The Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Fla.Stats. 1941, F.S.A., in Sec. 440.09, contains the following general and basic provision: 'Compensation shall be payable under this Act in respect of disability or death of an employee if the disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.'

But that Act has a specific provision relating to hernia in Section 440.15, F.S. 1941, F.S.A., which reads as follows:

'(6) Hernia: In all claims for compensation for hernia resulting from injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment it must be definitely proved to the satisfaction of the commission:

'(a) That there was an injury resulting in hernia.

'(b) That the hernia appeared suddenly.

'(c) That it was accompanied by pain.

'(d) That the hernia immediately followed an accident.

'(e) That the hernia did not exist prior to the accident for which compensation is claimed.'

Deputy Commissioner Allen Clements found that, 'giving full faith and credit to the claimant's testimony, it cannot be said that said evidence proves: (1) That there was an injury resulting in hernia. (2) That the hernia appeared suddenly. (3) That it was accompanied by pain, and (4) That the hernia immediately followed an accident.' He therefore found that 'claimant's said hernia was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment,' and denied the claim.

The full commission reversed this order, specifically upon the authority of Atlantic Marine Boat Yard, Inc., v. Daniel, 138 Fla. 864, 190 So. 612, and Duff Hotel Co. v. Ficara, 150 Fla. 442, 7 So.2d 790, 791. The Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's order and the employer and carrier took this appeal.

[154 Fla. 817] Neither of the cases cited by the Commission is in point here. In the Boat-Yard v. Daniel case, which was a hernia case, this Court in its opinion said: 'The petition showed that while pushing a boat into the water on the railway, the roller on the truck struck a joint on the rails and the employee tried to push it over the joint and felt a stinging sensation in his right side.' Further on in the opinion this Court adopted this language of the lower court. 'It is apparent from the language of the award that the sole ground upon which the commission denied compensation results from their conception that the statute requires the claimant, in establishing a compensable claim, to show that the hernia became immediately visible following the accident and that an outward protrusion of the same was forthwith noticed by the claimant.'

And in Duff Hotel Co. v. Ficara, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Terrell, said: 'The Deputy Commissioner found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 1964
    ...of Florida or Illinois, such a question of public policy is for the legislature not for the courts. General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908; Illinois Western Electric Co. v. Town of Cicero, 282 Ill. 468, 118 N.E. 735; People ex rel. Carruthers v. Cooper, 404 Ill. 395,......
  • Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, No. 30872
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 3, 1961
    ...with the problem of whether we have workmen's compensation, or whether we have health insurance. In General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908, 911, we said, 'This very valuable statute, [Chapter 440, Florida Statutes] while fulfilling a long standing public need, was no......
  • Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...but arose out of it. There must have been a causal connection between the employment and the injury." Gen. Properties Co. v. Greening , 154 Fla. 814, 18 So. 2d 908, 911 (1944) (emphasis supplied); Glasser v. Youth Shop , 54 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 1951) ("Since industry must carry the burden,......
  • Coon v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 69468
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1987
    ...of industry and to lift from the public the burden of supporting those incapacitated by industry. General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908 While we cannot disagree with this statement of purpose, we are unpersuaded that it requires us to accept the Coon estate's first ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 1964
    ...of Florida or Illinois, such a question of public policy is for the legislature not for the courts. General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908; Illinois Western Electric Co. v. Town of Cicero, 282 Ill. 468, 118 N.E. 735; People ex rel. Carruthers v. Cooper, 404 Ill. 395,......
  • Victor Wine & Liquor, Inc. v. Beasley, No. 30872
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 3, 1961
    ...with the problem of whether we have workmen's compensation, or whether we have health insurance. In General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908, 911, we said, 'This very valuable statute, [Chapter 440, Florida Statutes] while fulfilling a long standing public need, was no......
  • Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1D20-75
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...but arose out of it. There must have been a causal connection between the employment and the injury." Gen. Properties Co. v. Greening , 154 Fla. 814, 18 So. 2d 908, 911 (1944) (emphasis supplied); Glasser v. Youth Shop , 54 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 1951) ("Since industry must carry the burden,......
  • Coon v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 69468
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1987
    ...of industry and to lift from the public the burden of supporting those incapacitated by industry. General Properties Co. v. Greening, 154 Fla. 814, 18 So.2d 908 While we cannot disagree with this statement of purpose, we are unpersuaded that it requires us to accept the Coon estate's first ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT