Lyng v. Rao

• Decision Date: 23 April 1954
• Citation: 72 So.2d 53
• Parties: LYNG v. RAO et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 53

72 So.2d 53

LYNG v. RAO et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

April 23, 1954.

Thacker & Thacker, Kissimmee, for appellant.

Sanders, McEwen & Berson, Orlando, for appellees.

DREW, Justice.

Petitioner, Elsie Lyng, claims Workmen's Compensation benefits for injuries which she says she received when struck by lightning during a thunderstorm while engaged in her employment as a stenographer for the Osceola Hospital in Kissimmee, Florida, on June 14, 1951. It is not denied that she was engaged in her employment at the time of the alleged injury. The controversy has reached us because the Deputy Commissioner found that there was no testimony whatever of traumatic injury, and the Full Commission and Circuit Court upheld such findings on the principle that they were supported by substantial competent evidence.

Petitioner, claimant, at the time of the alleged injury was seated at her typewriter. In the room where she was seated were two exposed metal pipes and there was an electrical outlet in the center of the floor. The ceiling had been leaking for some time and the rainfall accompanying the storm had come through the ceiling and settled over the floor. The claimant's feet were wet and resting on the wet floor. She was engaged in typing when, according to her testimony, the following events took place:

'Well, what actually happened I don't know, but I do know it was during a terrific thunder shower and I was sitting at the typewriter and all of a sudden there was a tremendous glare of lightning in the room and I couldn't turn loose the typewriter and how long I sat there I don't know because I was paralyzed or petrified, unable to move.'

She further testified that she didn't hear anything but that 'light did flood the room;' and she didn't know how long she sat there because she couldn't move. She said, 'I don't even remember leaving the room and getting out in the lobby where I think that I was found.'

Her story is not disputed in the record. On the contrary, it is supported by the evidence of Dr. Frederick W. LaCava, employed in the same hospital. He was in an adjoining room at the time. He testified that the lightning struck the building. He confirmed the fact that the floor was wet and the physical characteristics of the room. The following are portions of his testimony:

'A. Well, the best way I can describe it, sir, is that I was coming into the examining room from the main hall of the first floor of the hospital. I think I had taken a few steps into the examining room which is right next door to this office that we were talking about.

'Q. In other words, you were not in the office with Mrs. Lyng? A. No, I wasn't at that particular time. No, I was not in this room, no.

'Q. What happened now at that particular time, physical thing, what, if anything, did you observe? A. Well, I don't think there was an awful lot to observe as there was to hear, sir, I definitely heard a deep voice and it was followed almost simultaneously, I mean the lapse of time was almost practically nothing, by a terrific clap of thunder, I mean it just reverberated the air and windows rattled and the lights went out, I remember that, and I also know that the noise was just tremendous the amount of sound.

'Q. Anything happen to that room where Mrs. Lyng was working? A. Well, within, I would say within--I walked immediately into that room and I would judge it took fifteen steps to get in there and when I was in there, the other part of the ceiling just opened up and we had just a deluge of water came down.

'Q. And before this it had leaked and now it was pouring in? A. This was right over, right over the door at the right side as you come in from the main waiting room and this rent is still there and it is a pretty good size tear in the plaster.'

On cross examination Dr. LaCava said:

'A. I can only assume so by the course of events and the way they occurred. I did not see lightning strike the building I didn't see any external evidence of it outside, but I think its only fair to say that the sound of the forces of electricity were very discernible and immediately following the ceiling split and the water came down and I might say this: that I actually smelt ozone in the air.'

He further testified that immediately after the event he requested the claimant to help mop the floor 'and she said I feel so sick I can't stand up.'

Claimant testified that she went home after the storm but couldn't sleep--that a pain developed in her chest--that she came back to the hospital the next morning and 'that was when I was stricken.' That she was immediately hospitalized and remained so until August 18, 1951, is undisputed. It was October 1st of that year, however, before she was able to return to work.

The only evidence in the record as to the nature of her injuries was that of the claimant. She testified that she had never had any pain in her chest in her life until the day in question. That there was 'never anything the matter with my heart. I haven't ever had a broken bone, I have never had an operation or anything. I was in perfectly good health. When that light flooded the room * * *.' She further testified that after leaving the hospital some two months later, 'I had to come back and have shock and other treatment.'

The carrier offered no evidence, resting its defense on the theory that 'there has been no showing of a trauma, no traumatic injury whatever.' The Deputy Commissioner agreed with this theory, stating in his order:

'In controverting the claimant's request for compensation, counsel for the employer and carrier...