Meehan v. Crowder
| Decision Date | 20 December 1946 |
| Citation | 28 So.2d 435,158 Fla. 361 |
| Parties | MEEHAN et al. v. CROWDER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1947.
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.
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 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 thought it was a border line case as will appear by the number of dissenters. Since then we have had occasion to detail the essential facts in it which actuated our judgment. See S. H. Kress & Co. et al. v. Burkes, 153 Fla. 868, 16 So.2d 106. We have not seen fit to recede from it and from our study of this case and the multitude of authorities cited we are more than ever convinced of the correctness of our ruling although we recognize that it is a border line case.
The point is made that Crowder did not use the poisonous solution through an accident. That is not important. Neither did Lang use the coal tar paint by accident. Quite the contrary in both cases. Neither will recovery be precluded because reputable medical testimony is introduced to show that the ill effects would have appeared sooner if the injury had been caused by the mercury poison. The trier of the facts found that the workman was subjected to peculiar conditions, namely: being enclosed without ventilation in hot weather causing the pores of his skin to open; mosquitoes puncturing his skin, all of which allowed the fumes to readily penetrate his body. He was a strong and well man before then. The period of time for the poison to react would naturally depend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Corp.
...definition of sudden accident in workers' compensation cases. Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Co., 138 So.2d 308 (Fla.1962); Meehan v. Crowder, 158 Fla. 361, 28 So.2d 435 (1946).6 Likewise, we also reject the dissenters' argument that the term "sudden and accidental" in the pollution exclusion cl......
-
Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Co.
...This evidence, considered in its entirety, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory element of suddenness. In the case of Meehan v. Crowder, 158 Fla. 361, 28 So.2d 435, the employee, previously in good health, was exposed for three days in the course of his work, to the poisonous fumes of mer......
-
Fuchs Baking Co. v. Estate of Szlosek
...to sustain the finding. The burden of showing harmful error is thereafter with him who challenges the award." Meehan v. Crowder, 158 Fla. 361, 28 So.2d 435 (1947). The rule with respect to such orders was stated in an early opinion: "[U]nless it can be said that the deputy's holding was err......
-
Wiley v. Southeast Erectors, Inc.
...to say that causal relationship requires absolute proof, to the exclusion of reasonable inferences. For example, in Meehan v. Crowder, 158 Fla. 361, 28 So.2d 435 (1946), the court rejected the employer/carrier's contention that causation in that case was based on conjecture, noting that "[c......