Court Opinion

ID: 9672189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:31.636932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.842440
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I do not concur in the majority opinion. To do so is to interpret the provision of section 35-202, R. R. S. 1943, “In case of the death, while in the line of duty,” as though it read “In case of death while in the employ.” It is true the opinion is premised on and is an extension of the holding in Elliott v. City of Omaha, 109 Neb. 478, 191 N. W. 653, which interpreted the phrase where “ ‘death is caused by or is the result of injuries: received while in the line of duty’ ” to include disease contracted in the line of duty (in that case pneumonia). There is a distinction, however, between contracting a disease which disabled the fireman immediately and resulted in his death 10 days later and this case where the fireman had a heart attack sitting in the living room of his home off duty and during a period when he had been under m special stress. The heart attack occurred on his third consecutive day off and 15 days after his last fire call. It is also pertinent to observe that for the past 5 years the fireman had been moonlighting. He had worked with a surveyor from 1 or 2 hours to 8 hours a day.
The medical expert did testify that firemen are subjected to special stress which could develop coronary *250artery disease. He testified, however, that this is also true of physicians, attorneys, and businessmen. Stress is not peculiar to the occupation of a fireman. It is equally present in many other endeavors of life, including the various duties incident to employment as a surveyor.
I am in accord with the thought that ample provision should be made for the protection of the families of public employees engaged in hazardous occupations. It should, however, be initiated by the legislative process and not accomplished by judicial legislation.
Brower, J., and Robert L. Flory, District Judge, concur in this dissent.