Olson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 30 April 1941
• Docket Number: 6893
• Citation: 112 P.2d 1005,62 Idaho 423
• Parties: CECIL OLSON, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

112 P.2d 1005

62 Idaho 423

CECIL OLSON, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Respondent

No. 6893

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 30, 1941

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-COMPENSABLE INJURY-PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT - DISFIGUREMENT - SCHEDULED INJURIES - LOSS OF EARNING POWER.

1. The Workmen's Compensation Law must be liberally construed. (I. C. A., secs. 43-902, 70-102.)

2. At common law, to knock out unlawfully one's front tooth constituted the crime of "mayhem."

3. Theoretically, the Workmen's Compensation Law was not intended to provide for payment of damages to injured workman, but only to compensate him for loss of earning power. (I. C. A., sec. 43-901 et seq.)

4. The question of negligence does not enter into consideration of claim for compensation by injured workman. (I. C. A., secs 43-902, 70-102.)

5. In enacting Workmen's Compensation Law abolishing every remedy for all injuries received by workman in course of his employment, Legislature did not intend to take from workman his common-law remedy for negligent act of employer resulting in serious injury and damage to workman, and give workman no other remedy in lieu thereof, and would be deemed to have assumed that every injury would impair workman's usefulness in some degree and that workman should be in some measure compensated under the new remedy set up by the compensation law. (I. C. A., secs. 43-902, 70-102.)

6. The loss of front teeth by employee who has been subsequently equipped with false teeth is as a matter of law a "physical impairment," and the injury resulting in loss of teeth is compensable without necessity of other evidence to establish the fact that deprivation of teeth has resulted in substantial loss to employee in his future work. (I. C. A., sec. 43-901 et seq.)

7. In applying provision in Workmen's Compensation Law that diminished ability to obtain employment owing to disgurement resulting from injury may be held to constitute partial disability, the seeking and procuring of future employment after injury is not confined to kinds of work the injured employee was pursuing at time of accident. (I. C. A., sec 43-1813.)

8. Under provision in Workmen's Compensation Law establishing schedule of compensation for various injuries and providing that "in all other cases in this class compensation shall bear such relation to the amount stated in the above schedule as the disabilities bear to those produced by the injuries named in the schedule," absence of evidence as to degree to which employee losing front teeth was disabled or disqualified from obtaining employment did not require denial of compensation on ground that Industrial Accident Board was without means or standards by which to determine the allowance to be awarded. (I. C. A., sec. 43-1113.)

APPEAL from the Industrial Accident Board.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law. From an order denying claim for compensation and dismissing petition plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Reversed and remanded with instructions. Costs to appellant.

Alfred C. Cordon. for Appellant.

The loss of three or four upper front teeth and a scar over right eye is a disfigurement, producing diminished ability to obtain employment and is compensable, even though the teeth are replaced by artificial teeth. (Odom v. Atlantic Oil Prod. Co., (La.) 110 So. 754; Betz v. Columbia Telephone Co., (Mo.) 24 S.W.2d 224; Mabee v. Anthony, (Okla.) 8 P.2d 22; Skelly Oil Co. v. Skinner, (Okla.) 19 P.2d 548; Muchnick v. Susquehanna Waist Co., (Pa.) 188 A. 412; Leach v. Grangeville Highway District, 55 Idaho 307, 313, 41 P.2d 618.)

Geo. H. Smith, H. B. Thompson and L. H. Anderson, for Respondent.

The term "disfigurement" is defined to be that which impairs or injuries the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person; that which renders unsightly, misshapen, imperfect, or deforms in some manner. (Stone v. Ware, Shoals Mfg. Co., (S. C.) 7 S.E.2d 226; Superior Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission, (Ill.) 141 N.E. 165.)

Diminished ability to obtain employment merely means a lessened ability to obtain work, and a showing in that respect cannot rest upon speculation, surmise or conjecture. (71 C. J. 1131, sec. 947.)

Before the Industrial Accident Board can make an award under Section 43-1813, I. C. A., it must find (1) that there was and is a disfigurement, (2) that claimant's ability to obtain employment has been diminished by such disfigurement, and to support a finding on either or both of these grounds the connection between cause and effect must be probable and not merely possible. (Sec. 43-1813, I. C. A.; Croy v. McFarland-Brown Lumber Co., 51 Idaho 32, 1 P.2d 189, 192; Brooke v. Nolan, 59 Idaho 759, 87 P.2d 470, 471.)

AILSHIE, J. Budge, C. J., Givens and Holden, JJ., concur. MORGAN, J. (Dissenting).

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

--Appellant, 18 years of age, with no dependants, was employed in the car department of respondent company at Pocatello. He "was helping other workmen construct an end gate of horizontal and perpendicular wood timbers for the body of what is known as a Hart-Convertible type sugar beet railroad car." The car was standing on the "rip track" in the railroad yards. September 13, 1940, while appellant was standing at the end of the car on which he was working and between it and a second car, the loosed end gate of the latter car fell, striking appellant on the back of his head, causing bruises and lacerations and fracturing four front teeth in his upper jaw, which necessitated their extraction. September 24th notice of injury was filed; October 12th appellant filed claim and petition for hearing before the Industrial Accident Board. November 30th the matter was heard before two members of the board.

The Board found that all hospitalization, medical services and dental services and material received by claimant have been furnished to him by respondent and at its expense; that the claimant lost no time in his employment on account of the accident and that he continued working for respondent until October 5, 1940, when he voluntarily ceased work, to become a student at the University of Idaho, Southern Branch, specializing in the subject of chemistry;

"that, resulting from said accident, claimant now has a slight scar over his right eye and a slight scar near the bridge of his nose; that neither of said scars is very noticeable; that the dental bridge which claimant has in place of his four upper front teeth appears to be in excellent condition; that while claimant has sustained some facial disfigurement and some permanent injury as a result of said accident, such facial disfigurement and permanent injury do not diminish his ability to obtain employment in the kind of work he was doing at the time of his accident and under the evidence submitted, such permanent injury cannot be determined or estimated under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law." Order was entered by the Board, denying the claim and dismissing the petition, from which claimant has appealed to this court:

The statute, sec. 43-1813, I. C. A., provides:

"Diminished ability to obtain employment owing to disfigurement resulting from an injury may be held to constitute partial disability."

Sec. 43-1113 of the code establishes a schedule of compensation for various injuries which is immediately followed by this sentence: "In all other cases in this class compensation shall bear such relation to the amount stated in the above schedule as the disabilities bear to those produced by the injuries named in the schedule."

The Board denied appellant's claim on the ground that the accident and resultant injury had not impaired his earning power, under sec. 43-1813, I. C. A.; and that he has suffered no physical impairment, since he has been furnished manufactured teeth just as useful and sightly as his natural teeth. Appellant maintains that the loss of three front teeth is, as a matter of law, a physical impairment and that it requires no other evidence to establish the fact that the deprivation of one's natural teeth results in a substantial loss to the victim in his future work.

We must approach the consideration of this case, having in mind the admonition of our statute (secs. 43-902 and 70-102, I. C. A.) and the repeated holdings of this court, to the effect that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law must be liberally construed, with a view to effect its object and promote justice. (McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, 786, 203 P. 1068; Ramsay v. Sullivan Mining Co., 51 Idaho 366, 372, 6 P.2d 856; Cooper v. Ind. Transfer, etc., Co., 52 Idaho 747, 756, 19 P.2d 1057; Page v. State Ins. Fund, 53 Idaho 177, 186, 22 P.2d 681; Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 443, 74 P.2d 171; Brink v. H. Earl Clack Co., 60 Idaho 730, 739, 96 P.2d 500.)

At common law, to unlawfully knock out one's "front tooth" constituted the crime of mayhem (4 Blackstone's Comm., 205; 2 Coke's Litt., 288a). Whether it falls within the definition of our statute defining mayhem (sec. 17-1301, I. C. A.) has never been determined, though at least one court (Texas) has held so as a matter of law. (Keith v. State, (Tex. Crim. App.) 232 S.W. 321, 16 A. L. R. 949.) At any rate, the teeth are, and always have been, considered a prime necessity and so important to humans that the possession of those furnished by nature is never voluntarily given up except from necessity, real or apparent.

It is contended, however, that the Workmen's Compensation Law does not provide, and was not intended to provide, for payment of damages to an injured workman; that it only intends to compensate him for loss of earning power. That is theoretically true. The act is bottomed on that principle...