Court Opinion

ID: 9847038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:43.995835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.394392
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(dissenting).
Dr. John S. McMillin, the internist who made an examination and took an electrocardiogram of the deceased, Edward William Laird, with reference to the instructions given the deceased, testified as follows :
“A. I suggested to him that he take the medicine which I prescribed for him, and that he stay off work for a period of time. I don’t recall now offhand how long, that would depend on what his symptoms were, we advised him not to do anything, but he said that he couldn’t afford to do that; that he had to work and that his job was driving a road grader and that it wasn’t terrifically strenuous; that he was sitting down and that the equipment — most of it — -had power mechanism on it and that he wouldn’t have to exert himself too much, and that he would like to try that for a while and see if he could do it. That was the way we left it. It was felt at the time he would be wise to just stop work entirely until his symptoms had subsided a little bit.”
The exertion which produced the first' attack was the operation of a hydraulically-powered highway roller. It must be observed there is little exertion required in the steering, operating, and controlling of this piece of equipment.
After the doctor’s instructions, Edward1 William Laird returned to his employment and engaged in his normal occupation as. a traveling mechanic. The work the deceased was performing which produced the-injury that resulted in his death is characterized by the testimony of Grant. Howard:
“Q. What kind of work was he £7oing? A. He was doing some welding and hammering there.
“Q. Could you describe in detail what he did, his position and what work he did then? A. It is a pulverizer— what they use to pulverize the oil on the roads. It has a heavy door on the rear end with a plate on the back and *27a kind of a smoother-outer, and it had come loose so he came down to weld the hinges together.
“Q. Is that quite heavy material he was working on? A. Well it is steel —it was fairly heavy, yes.
“Q. Did he have this equipment •down on the ground when he was doing the welding? A. It was raised up two feet off the ground and he had to weld upward and sometimes from .the top down.
■“Q. Part of the time he was bending over and part of the time he was working upward? A. Yes.
“Q. Part of the time he was bending down and welding the top? A. Yes.
“Q. And that would require his face to be in quite close proximity to the welding machine, would it? A. Yes.
“Q. How far away would his face be from the actual place he was using the machine? A. Pretty close to it, as a rule — within a foot of it anyway, .or a little closer.
“Q. He was wearing a mask over 'his eyes? A. Yes, he had a welder’s 'helmet.
“Q. Does that completely cover his ■face? A. Yes, it is a hood that slips down over his face.
ijc >¡í sjí * *
“Q. Do you recall about how long it took for him to complete this welding job? A. Yes, I would say he had been working on it approximately an hour.
“Q. And on finishing the actual welding, what did he do? A. After he got through with the welding he had to beat it out with a sledge hammer to a certain extent.
“Q. About how large a sledge hammer? A. About a two-pound hammer.
“Q. Did he use one hand or two hands? A. I never paid much attention, but I imagine one hand.
“Q. He was knocking the slag and sludge from it? A. Yes, and there was a little straightening on the rod by the hinges.
“Q. He was trying to straighten that? A. Yes, he heat on that some.
“Q. Would you describe what happened? A. After he finished that, he said he would like to rest a few minutes —I think I will sit in the pickup a while, and he went and sat in his pickup. He hadn’t been there more than five minutes, I guess, until he took this heart attack.”
All of the work performed by the deceased during the time of both attacks was under the same climatic conditions and at the same altitude.
Laird had been advised not to return to his employment, but when he insisted that *28he had to work, his physicians cautioned him not to perform any work which would require strenuous physical exertion. Another of his examining physicians testified as follows:
“Q. The amount of work that he was doing there, taking a few strokes with a two-pound hammer, Doctor, would you consider that as extreme exertion? A. I consider it beyond his capacity.”
It is clear that Laird suffered damage to his heart as a result of over-exertion in the course of his employment, and this has been held to be compensable. However, it is going beyond the conception of Workmen’s Compensation that an award must be made to cover an intentional injury suffered as a result of a man’s deliberate acts.
The courts of the several states have consistently applied liberal construction to the Workmen’s Compensation statutes, which as a general rule require this common-sense interpretation; but the compensation statutes were never designed to compensate for deliberate, self-inflicted injuries. In Idaho this is governed by I.C. sec. 72-2D2:
“No compensation shall be allowed for an injury caused:
“By the employee’s wilful intention to injure himself or to injure another He * *,f
This Court has in numerous cases stated that Workmen’s Compensation is not insurance, but the courts of many states have resorted to various legal stratagems to in effect accomplish the result of creating insurance. To enlarge the conception of Workmen's Compensation is a statutory matter, and should be left to the Legislature. Because our system of compensation has, become an integrated part of the industrial structure, it would be realistic for the Legislature to so enlarge the statutes on Workmen’s Compensation as to make it insurance.