Case Title: Industrial Commission v. La Foret Camps

Citation: 125 Colo. 503, 245 P.2d 459

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1952-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
245 P.2d 459 (1952) 125 Colo. 503 INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. v. LA FORET CAMPS et al. No. 16778. Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc. May 19, 1952. Rehearing Denied June 9, 1952. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., II. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission. Duane O. Littell, Denver, for defendants in error. MOORE, Justice. This case originated before the Industrial Commission where Gertie Rausch, one of the plaintiffs in error, was claimant and defendants in error were claimant's employer and the insurance carrier. Following the hearing upon the claim filed by Mrs. Rausch, the referee made findings which included, inter alia, the following: The commission adopted the findings of the referee and made an award of compensation to claimant. The employer and insurance carrier brought an action in the district court where the findings and award of the commission were vacated and set aside upon the ground that, under the undisputed evidence, claimant had not sustained *460 an accident or an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Claimant explained the circumstances leading to her temporary disability and loss of work by the following testimony: On cross-examination she testified in part as follows: Section 294, chapter 97, '35 C.S.A. provides benefits "* * * for any personal injury accidentally sustained * * *"; where, "at the time of the accident, the employee is performing service arising out of and in the course of his employment." Benefits are further provided for "Where the injury or death is proximately caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and is not intentionally self-inflicted." Dr. James A. Johnson submitted a report of his examination made on behalf of the insurance company in which he stated in part: The question is answered in the affirmative. The term "accident" has a particular meaning when used in connection with injuries for which compensation is sought under workmen's compensation acts. Appellate courts throughout the nation are in substantial agreement in holding that it is not necessary that there should be anything extraordinary occurring in or about the work itself, such as slipping or falling, in order to make an injury the result of an accident. In Carroll v. Industrial Commission, 69 Colo. 473, at page 475, 195 P. 1097, at page 1098, 19 A.L.R. 107, our court said: In United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Industrial Commission, 96 Colo. 571, 45 P.2d 895, 898, where excitement and overexertion produced a heart attack resulting in death, our court held that a surviving widow was entitled to benefits under the compensation act. In reaching this conclusion we there said, inter alia: "We have determined in this state that an accident is a result, the causes of which are unexpected and unusual or that it may be also an unexpected and unusual result from ordinary causes." To like general effect are the decisions in Great American Indemnity Co. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 108 Colo. 323, 116 P.2d 919; Gates v. Central City Opera House Ass'n, 107 Colo. 93, 108 P.2d 880; Keating v. Industrial Commission, 105 Colo. 155, 95 P.2d 821. We think the facts in the instant case were sufficient to warrant the findings and award of the Industrial Commission, and the trial court erred in setting them aside. The judgment accordingly is reversed and cause remanded. ALTER, J., dissents. HOLLAND, J., not participating.