Meehan v. Crowder

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida
• Writing for the Court: Author: Adams
• Citation: 28 So.2d 435,158 Fla. 361
• Parties: MEEHAN et al. v. CROWDER et al.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1946

28 So.2d 435

158 Fla. 361

MEEHAN et al.
v.
CROWDER et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 20, 1946

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1947. [28 So.2d 436]

[158 Fla. 362] Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; M. B. Smith Judge.

Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, of Orlando, for appellants.

John D. Shepard, of Cocoa, and Raymond E. Barnes, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

Prior to the 9th, 10th and 11th of August, 1943, J. I. Crowder was in good health. On those dates he was directed by his employer to wash the interior of a building with a solution of bichloride of mercury. Crowder had been a painter for many years but had had no previous experience or knowledge of the dangerous nature of the mercury solution. The only warning given was not to get the solution in his month. The building was not ventilated. The weather was hot and mosquito bites were plentiful. All conditions were favorable for the poisonous fumes to penetrate the body and blood stream of Crowder during the three day period. On the 20th of August Crowder complained to the foreman on [158 Fla. 363] the job and requested relief under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The foreman rejected the claim because Crowder had suffered no accident. Crowder's condition continued to grow worse. In December following, his teeth became loose, his gums became red and swollen, his fingers and finger nails turned brown. From all appearances he was a very sick man. Soon thereafter the doctors diagnosed this ailment as nephritis or 'Bright's Disease', caused by the absorption of bichloride of mercury. The symptoms, pain and swelling of the ankles, began to appear about a week after using the solution. He continued to suffer headaches and a rash broke out on his neck and face.

The deputy commissioner commented:

But in the case under consideration Mr. Crowder did not use the mercurial solution through an accident and there was no 'accident' as defined in the Shepard case cited above. There was no time that I can find from the testimony at which Mr. Crowder knew that he was sustaining an injury, and he did not suspect that he was sustaining an injury arising out of and by reason of his employment until in December 1943 after his exposure in August of 1943.

'My conclusion is, and I find, that if nephritis or Bright's Disease was caused by the exposure to bichloride of mercury, it was a natural and not unexpected or accidental result; and if it was caused by mercurial poisoning, the action was so slow until the results cannot be definitely traced to the exposure of the bichloride of mercury.' and dismissed the case.

The full commission reversed the deputy commissioner upon authority of Rayonier, Inc., a Corporation, et al. v. Jane O. Lang, 153 Fla. 396, 14 So.2d 569. On appeal the circuit court affirmed the commission and the employer and carrier have now appealed.

The question, which has claimed the most attention throughout this case, is whether the injury was caused by an accident as contemplated by our Workmen's Compensation Act. F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that we did not write an opinion in the Lang case, supra. At that time we...