Court Opinion

ID: 9764653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:34:32.224625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:59.601400
License: Public Domain

Millwee, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority in this case and the case of Balter v. Slaughter, also handed down today. Unless the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and this court committed a grave error in the case of McGregor & Pickett v. Arrington, 206 Ark. 921, 175 S. W. 2d 210, the majority are doing so in the instant case. The undisputed facts in the two cases are practically identical. In the McGregor & Pickett case a carpenter Avas lifting and sliding one end of a plank, 2 x 12 and 16 feet long-, ■ and weighing from 100 to 150 pounds when he slumped and Avas dead from a heart attack by the time his body could be lowered from the scaffold where he was working. In the case at bar the deceased was lifting and placing in position one end of a timber 4 x 10 and 16 feet long, weighing from 100 to 150 pounds, when he was stricken with a heart attack and fell from the scaffold upon which he was working and died shortly thereafter. The deceased in each case had for several years been afflicted with heart disease and the accident happened near the end of the work day. How the Commission could make an award in one case and refuse it in the other is beyond my comprehension. In the case at bar the Commission held that the evidence failed to disclose any unusual strain or fortuitous happening that would constitute an accidental injury. In the McGregor & Pickett case the Commission found: “Thus, the decedent suffered an exertion the accidental and unexpected result of which was an injury to his heart causing his death. We, therefore, hold that decedent’s death resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” The majority quotes from an isolated part of the examination of the witness Midgett by the Chairman of the Commission in which the conclusion was drawn from the witness that the work of deceased at the time of his collapse was of no more strenuous nature than that which he had been doing. This conclusion and opinion of the witness is meaningless in view of the undisputed fact that the workmen previously had been handling much shorter and lighter timbers and this particular timber was the first heavy one that was handled after deceased came on the job. In Harding Glass Co. v. Albertson, 208 Ark. 866, 187 S. W. 2d 961, we approved the following statement from Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, (Perm. Ed.) § 1328: “The majority of the American courts follow the English rule as set out in the case of Glover, Clayton & Co. v. Hughes, [1910] A. C. 242: ‘An accident arises out of the employment when the required exertion producing the accident is too great for the man undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion or condition of health.’ ” In that case a workman died eight months after suffering from heat prostration on the job and we said: “While appellants cite authorities holding to the contrary, we think the better rule, and the one supported by the great weight of authority, is that a heat prostration which resulted as here, and was sustained by a workman or employee, while engaged in the employment, and which grew out of the employment, whether due to unusual or extraordinary conditions or not, is deemed an accidental injury and compensable, and we so hold. ’ ’ Our decisions in the McGregor & Pickett and Albertson cases and many others such as Sturgis Bros. v. Mays, 208 Ark. 1017, 188 S. W. 2d 629, and Batesville White Lime Co. v. Bell, 212 Ark. 23, 205 S. W. 2d 31, recognize the rule supported by the great weight of authority to the effect that an injury is accidental where either the cause or the result is accidental, although the work being done is usual and ordinary. In Baker v. Slaughter, the majority intimate that the above quotation from Schneider which we approved and followed in the Albertson case is wrong as applied here because it was stated out of context with other statements in the section. I submit that a digest of the numerous cases, which follow the statement of the rule in § 1328 of Schneider, supra, demonstrates the correctness of the author’s statement whether considered in or out of context. The beautiful lip service to the law of liberal construction, which the majority state but proceed to ignore, and the glowing tribute to thé stout courage of the deceased, have a rather hollow ring in view of the harsh and inconsistent results reached in these cases. Surely the dependent widow and children who have been so unjustly treated will find little comfort in them. This is indeed a grey day for the dependent families of Arkansas workmen. Justice Ward concurs in this dissent.