Court Opinion

ID: 9767828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:29:31.48319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.858131
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I feel that the doctrine of Lexington Railway System v. True, 276 Ky. 446, 124 S.W.2d 467, is sound and for the further reason that it is unwise to change it. It has been followed for many years in many cases; thus, the rule is well established. The majority opinion recognizes this in pointing out that many cases would have to be overruled.
The basis of the rule is set forth in Maddox v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., Ky., 329 S.W.2d 189, as follows:
“When we test the facts of the instant case by our definition of ‘arising out of’ we find that this injury did not result ' from a risk connected with Maddox’ employment because all persons using public highways are exposed to the same hazard. It did not result from a danger peculiar to the distilling industry. * * ■*.”
Some of the cases in which this rule has. been thoroughly and exhaustively consid*951ered are: Harlan Collieries Company v. Shell, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 923; Harlan-Wallins Coal Corporation v. Stewart, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 912; Wilke v. University of Louisville, Ky., 327 S.W.2d 739; City of Prestonsburg v. Gray, Ky., 341 S.W.2d 257.
In the latter case the Court said:
“The phrase ‘arising out of’ refers to the cause of the accident; that is, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. Harlan Colleries [Collieries] Company v. Shell, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 923. 'The test seems to be whether the cause had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and the injury flowed from that source as a natural and rational consequence. Palmer v. Main, 209 Ky. 226, 272 S.W. 736; January-Wood Company v. Schumacher, 231 Ky. 705, 22 S.W.2d 117; Stasel v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, Ky., 278 S.W.2d 721; Masonic Widows and Orphans Home v. Lewis, Ky., 330 S.W.2d 103. The injury, in order to be compensable, must have been an incident of or have issued from the performance of some duty that the employee owed the employer and resulted as a natural consequence of performance of that duty. As such, it must be seen to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment. Such being the case, it can be said to arise out of the employment. Bluegrass Pastureland Dairies v. Meeker, 268 Ky. 722, 105 S.W.2d 611. The exposure to the hazard must result from engagement in the performance of the duties of the employment.”
In the Stewart case, in 1955, it was pointed out that any change in the rule should be made by the Legislature and not by the courts. This suggestion was again made in the Maddox case in 1959. Neither the Legislature nor the people who normally are most interested in such matters have seen fit to press .for a change or to change the rule. It ill becomes this Court to do so.
There is too much instability in the law. It is the function of the judiciary to construe the law, and to change the law is outside that function. Stability of the law is the cornerstone of an orderly society.
It must be pointed out that this change is a'big step toward complete coverage of all injuries suffered by an employee during working hours without regard to whether the injury results from any risk connected with the employment. This was not the intent of the Legislature in enacting tho Workmen’s Compensation Law. This, in effect, places a burden on the employer, which was never contemplated.
For these reasons I cannot agree with the majority opinion.