Hayes v. McMullen
| Decision Date | 21 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 29240. |
| Citation | 259 N.W. 165,128 Neb. 432 |
| Parties | HAYES v. MCMULLEN. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence examined and was found to support the finding that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment.
2. The Workmen's Compensation Act will be interpreted and construed liberally and technical refinement will not be allowed to defeat its purposes.
3. The Legislature, in the enactment of the Workmen's Compensation Act, among other things, had in mind the protection of persons gainfully employed who had received injuries in the course of their employment, but who could not recover under common-law rules, and the placing of the burden of such injuries on the particular industries involved rather than the public.
4. The word " accident" shall 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 injury.
5. The term " injury" and " personal injuries" shall mean only violence to physical structures of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom.
6. A case of " snow blindness," which is a condition that requires several hours to manifest itself and is an unusual occurrence in this climate, and which, as in this case, did manifest itself by visible irritations during the day of exposure, is an accident, unexpected, unforeseen happening suddenly and violently, and producing objective symptoms of injury to physical structures, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law of Nebraska.
Appeal from District Court, Burt County; Dineen, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Thomas F. Hayes, employee, opposed by Harold McMullen, employer. From a judgment of the district court on appeal from compensation commissioner awarding compensation, the employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Story & Thomas, of Omaha, for appellant.
W. M. Hopewell and W. K. Hopewell, both of Tekamah, for appellee.
Heard before GOSS, C. J., ROSE, GOOD, EBERLY, and PAINE, JJ., and YEAGER, District Judge.
This is an action tried in the district court for Burt county, Nebraska, wherein Thomas F. Hayes, plaintiff and appellee, recovered a judgment against the defendant and appellant, under the Workmen's Compensation Laws of this state, for injuries claimed to have been sustained by him while he was employed by the defendant as the operator of a blade machine in the removal of snow from a public highway in Burt county. From the judgment the defendant has appealed to this court. The amount or size of the award is not in question in the errors complained of.
Appellant has made four assignments of error in his brief. It will be necessary to discuss only the first two, since a determination of the question of whether or not the plaintiff met with an accident as claimed, which is the first assignment, and whether or not the disability of plaintiff arose out of and in the course of his employment, which is the second assignment, will be determinative of the other two.
Without taking up the space necessary to refer specifically to particular evidence, it very definitely appears that on March 23, 1933, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant and was operating a blade machine, the purpose of which was to remove snow from the public highway. He was required to keep his eyes constantly upon the snow as it was being removed. On the day in question it was quite warm for that time of the year and the sun shone brightly and he worked for about twelve hours. At the end of the day he was burned, as if sunburned, about the face and his eyes were inflamed. The condition of his eyes got steadily worse until the 28th of March, when he called upon Dr. Heacock of Lyons, Nebraska, who prescribed for him and ordered him to remain in a dark room. Two days later he was sent to an eye specialist at Sioux City, Iowa. He was confined in a hospital at Sioux City for a period of four days, when he returned to his home and the care of Dr. Heacock. He returned later to Sioux City and the hospital, where he remained for more than three weeks, after which he returned home and remained there, except for a period of one week some time later, which week he spent in the hospital. His eyesight has been seriously and permanently impaired and without question the progress of the condition leading to the impairment of vision entailed large expense and much suffering.
The progress of the condition was about as follows: In the afternoon of March 23, 1933, plaintiff noticed that his eyes and face were irritated and later in the week the face peeled. The eyes got worse. During the week an ulcer developed in the right eye. An ulcer developed in the left eye on or about May 18, 1933. There was a severe infection and ulceration on the conjunctiva and...
To continue reading
Request your trial