Westbrook v. Highview
| Decision Date | 28 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20761.,20761. |
| Citation | 157 S.E. 362,42 Ga.App. 834 |
| Parties | WESTBROOK. v. HIGHVIEW, Ino. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by R. F. Westbrook, claimant, opposed by HighView, Incorporated, employer. Award of Industrial Commission denying compensation was affirmed by the superior court, and claimant brings error.
Affirmed.
Burress & Dillard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
H. L. Luttrell, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. A hernia, to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, must result from "an injury by accident, " arising out of and in the course of the employment. There must be "an injury resulting in hernia." The hernia must have "immediately followed an accident." See section 2 (d, e), Workmen's Compensation Act ().
2. An act done by an employee in the ordinary performance of the duties for which he is employed, when done in a manner not unusual or unexpected, but in the manner ordinarily required and expected of him in the performance of his duties, does not constitute an injury by accident; and a hernia resulting to the employee from the performance of such act does not result from an injury by accident. See, in this connection, U. S. Mutual Acc. Ass'n v. Barry, 131 U. S. 100, 9 S. Ct. 755, 33 L. Ed. 60; Atlanta Accident Association v. Alexander, 104 Ga. 709, 30 S. E. 939, 42 L. R. A. 188; Fulton v. Metropolitan Casualty Co., 19 Ga. App. 127, 91 S. E. 228; 1 C. J. 394; 14 R. C. L. 419.
3. Where an employee's duty is to build and construct cabinets and, with the help of another person, put them in position, and where while in thus putting one of the cabinets into position the employee does so in the ordinary manner for the performance of this duty and in a manner not unusual or unexpected in its performance and does not exert or strain himself in a manner which is unusual or unexpected in the performance of this duty, but in the performance of his duty of sliding the cabinet into place he exerts himself only in the manner ordinarily required and expected of him, a hernia results, the hernia does not result from an injury by accident. Had the employee, while thus engaged in sliding the cabinet into position, fallen or stumbled, or had the cabinet fallen upon him, or had he sustained any other "mishap not expected or designed" (See 19 A. L. R. 102, 103), and a hernia resulted therefrom, a different question might have been presented.
4. The award of the industrial commission denying compensation was authorized. The superior court did not err in affirming the judgment of the industrial commission.
Judgment affirmed.
I am unable to agree with my colleagues on the proposition that an injury to an employee is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 167) when it is brought about in the ordinary performance of the duties for which he is employed, as done in the usual and ordinary manner required, on the theory that such an occurrence cannot constitute an accident It has uniformly been held that the Workmen's Compensation Act must be construed liberally in favor of the workman; and in my opinion the term "accident, " as there used, is not to be limited in accordance with some of the definitions derived from provisions of accident insurance policies, but must be taken in its broad and commonly accepted sense. If theemployee did something with the purpose and intent of injuring himself, it would not be an accident; but the mere fact that an unintended and unexpected injury is brought about by the performance of his duty, in the usual manner and method intended by his employment, should not be taken to exclude such an injury from the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act except for accidents; but the word "accident, " as there employed, is used for the purpose of distinguishing the kind of injuries dealt with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackshear v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co
...the existing hernia, and that there was no enlargement or aggravation of the preexisting hernia condition." In West-brook v. Highview, Inc., 42 Ga.App. 834, 157 S.E. 362, the only question determined by the court was that the hernia had not been the result of injury caused by an accident wh......
-
Royal Indem. Co. v. Beckmann
...and that while "he was prizing on this crow bar," he "just felt something hit him in the groin." In that case the court distinguished the Westbrook case by saying: "It does not appear in case, as it appeared in the Westbrook Case, that the claimant was performing a duty in the ordinary mann......
-
Royal Indem. Co v. Beckmann, 29112.
...(See 19 A.L.R. 102, 103), and a hernia resulted therefrom, a different question might have been presented." Westbrook v. Highview, Inc., 42 Ga.App. 834, 157 S.E. 362. In Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. v. Stasiak, 158 Md. 349, 148 A. 452, it was held as follows: "Where stevedore as claimant in ......