Court Opinion

ID: 9661343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:36:06.283379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:27.420044
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
LAWSON, Justice.
We have given careful consideration to the brief filed in support of appellee’s application for rehearing. The record was carefully read and studied before the deliverance of the original opinion, but we have reread it at the insistence of counsel for appellee, who seems to entertain the view that our original opinion was written without our having read the record. We have again read the opinion in Ingalls *537Shipbuilding Corp. v. Cahela, 251 Ala. 163, 36 So.2d 513.
In appellee’s brief filed on rehearing it is pointed out that the trial court found from the evidence that on and prior to April 7, 1952, the plaintiff had occupational pneumonoconiosis, which disease arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment by defendant and further found that the inhaling by plaintiff of gases and fumes caused by the burning of coal, silica and other materials on April 7, 1952, aggravated and acting upon the pre-existing disease of pneumonoconiosis. The trial .court did so find and the evidence fully supports such a finding. We do not believe that we indicated to the contrary in our original opinion.
Our disagreement with the trial court was in its holding that: " * * * the amendment thereafter filed to the complaint was within the lis pendens and was mot subject to the statute of limitations. That it related to the same accident or ■cause of action and merely set up the result of the injury subsequent to filing the ■original complaint.” The amendments do relate to the same accident as the original ■complaint but, in our opinion, insofar as they claim benefits because of the contraction of occupational pneumonoconiosis or because of the aggravation of that disease they inject an injury altogether different from that relied upon in the original complaint. The original complaint cannot, in our opinion, be said to claim benefits due to any kind of lung injury, infirmity or disease.
We are still of the opinion that under the case of Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Heald, 171 Ala. 263, 55 So. 181, from which we quoted in the original ■opinion, the trial court erred in not holding that the amendments were subject to the plea of the statute of limitations.
Application for rehearing overruled.
. LIVINGSTON, C. J.; and GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.