Court Opinion

ID: 9533611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:33:08.855407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:06.079723
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the holding of the Industrial Accident Board is correct and should be affirmed. The record fails to establish an industrial accident causing an injury. While on cursory reading, prior precedents, on first impression, might be construed as being in conflict, none th'e less the Board followed authorities established by this Court over a period of years.
Before one can recover under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, there must first be an industrial accident causing an injury. The Board found claimant' did not suifet *49such an accident. The finding is supported by substantial, competent evidence, and under the constitution and many prior precedents the determination made by the Board should be sustained.
The majority opinion can only result in further confusion of case law covering similar situations.
The following authorities sustain the Board’s conclusion: Wade v. Pacific Coast Elevator Co., 64 Idaho 176, 129 P.2d 894; Walters v. City of Weiser, 66 Idaho 615, 164 P.2d 593; Carrie v. Carrie, 73 Idaho 503, 254 P.2d 410; Swan v. Williamson, 74 Idaho 32, 257 P.2d 552; Dunn v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 74 Idaho 210, 260 P.2d 398. These holdings should not be lightly disregarded.
I would affirm the order.