Court Opinion

ID: 9537763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:22:48.449586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:57.798491
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice
(dissenting).
November 29, 1954, the Industrial Accident Board made its order denying compensation to appellant, surviving minor of Devlin, Searles’ deceased employee. During the 30-day appeal period immediately following, appellant made application to the Board for reopening and rehearing of the minor’s compensation claim, which application December 29, 1954, the Board denied. Such procedure was designed to elicit the Board’s finding upon the evidence indicating Searles’ insanity May 11, 1953, when he shot and thereby killed Devlin, his employee, and killed himself a short time afterwards. The Board failed to make any finding thereon.
Appellant in said application also offered to show medically, that at the time of such unfortunate incidents, Searles was suffering from the mental disease and derangement of alcoholic paranoia.
Appellant also pointed out in said application, that the Board failed to find whether the employee Devlin was exposed to personal injury by an insane employer by reason, and as a hazard, of said employment.
The record contains undisputed evidence to the following effect:
That Searles drank intoxicating « . liquor in increasing quantity from 1947 to the time his death occurred May 11, 1953. He became a heavy, constant drinker for some time prior to his death. During the last year of his life his complexion became yellow and he lost weight. At times he would sit at a bench and stare into space. His ability to handle his business became worse. He became irritable with customers and employees. He constantly talked to the effect that people were trying to take advantage of him. He became suspicious of everyone. His eyes were bloodshot and dilated. During the last year of his life he acted irrational at times. He didn’t recognize a friend on the street a week or so before his death.
The Industrial Accident Board took no cognizance of such undisputed evidence and made no findings whatever with reference thereto.
Appellant properly assigned error of the Board in failing to find both on the issue of Searles’ sanity, and in denying appellant’s application to reopen the matter for further proceedings. Nevertheless, this Court in its majority opinion has failed and refused to take cognizance of such specifications of error.
Inasmuch as the evidence hereinbefore set out is undisputed, and the Board failed *351to find thereon, this Court incorrectly attempts invocation of the rule that the finding's of the Board, when supported by substantial competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. That rule applies where the Board has given credit and weight to the evidence, as shown by its findings, and has drawn reasonable inferences therefrom, as shown by its rulings of law, i. e., performed its mandatory duty in those regards, I.C., sec. 72-604 (although herein it failed so to do), and when the evidence supports the Board’s findings and rulings so made. The rule perhaps would have application herein, provided, either that the record was devoid of evidence pointing to Searles’ insanity; or that an adverse board finding on the undisputed evidence pointing to Searles’ insanity, could be said to be supported as a matter of law, by competent evidence.
The majority opinion admits that the record contains evidence tending to show Searles was paranoiac. Paranoia is a very serious mental disorder. It is a progressive type of insanity usually stemming from schizophrenia or dementia praecox. It is characterized by persecution complexes and, as in Searles’ case, may progress to the acute and dangerous stage of destructive retaliation, which may lead to terrible crime. Such mentally afflicted individuals are indeed most dangerous. Toxic poisons, such as alcohol, may lead to the paranoia; on the other hand, the paranoiac by use of alcohol may show his mental derange-: ment to a markedly exaggerated degree. Kraines, Therapy of the Neuroses and Psychoses, pp. 421-435; Gray, Attorneys’ Handbook of Medicine, Vol. 2, Paranoia, c. 104, pp. 1159-1167. The fact that the Court, in its majority opinion, points to the evidence indicative of Searles’ insanity, sufficiently illustrates the necessity of a finding on the issue of sanity. Further, a finding thereon ought to clear the confusion indicated by the majority opinion, to which attention is hereinafter directed.
The Court in its majority opinion finds and concludes inter alia as follows:
“While there is some evidence tending to show that Searles may have been an alcoholic paranoiac or insane, nevertheless it does not appear that such was the cause of his killing Devlin, as it appears to have 'been done as the result of premeditation, and not in a sudden fit of insanity or an unmotivated, frenzied attack, * * * but it was the result of imaginary or real personal grievances in no way connected with the employment. * * * Even if Searles was insane, his shooting Devlin was the result of a personal matter having no connection with Devlin’s employment. * * * Here, the shooting of Devlin by his employer because of animosity was foreign to the employment, and Devlin’s death therefore did not arise out of his employment by Searles, who was evident*352ly- determined to have his vengeance wherever he might find his victim.”
While the Court recognizes the evidence as pointing to Searles’ insane paranoia, what follows is most strikingly incongruous, because of the contradictions therein contained; for the opinion then sets out, (1) that the insanity was not the cause of the killing but that the killing was done as the result of premeditation, which presupposes sanity, i. e., capability of committing a willful act; (2) that the killing was the result of imaginary or real personal grievances, which presupposes in the one case mental derangement, and in the other, sanity, i. e., both incapability and capability of committing a willful act; (3) that even if Searles was insane (incapable of committing a willful act) the shooting was the result of a personal matter, which presupposes sanity; (4) that the killing was because of animosity and a determination to have vengeance, which presupposes sanity, i. e., capability of committing a willful act. It is simply impossible to conceive of a person being insane and at the same time sane. Unfortunately the portions of the majority opinion hereinbefore referred to present just that impossible situation.
Moreover, the majority opinion attempts the impossible when it attempts correlation of the two hypotheses into non-compensa-bility, i. e., the infliction of the personal injury which caused Devlin’s death by either, (1) the employer’s sane mind, or (2) his insane mind; for the wealth of legal authority, hereinafter referred to, simply will not bear out the second hypothesis.
Further, the majority opinion disregards a concept of insanity which has always existed medically and legally, so well expressed in concise language in Chadwick v. White Provision Co., 82 Ga.App. 249, 60 S.E.2d 551, at page 552, as follows:
“An insane person is incapable of committing a willful act, and acts of such persons are in terms of Workman’s Compensation Law accidental to the person against whom they are directed.”
and recognized by this Court in Louie v. Bamboo Gardens, 67 Idaho 469, 474, 185 P.2d 712; for therein this Court held that regardless of Hong’s imaginary grievance, —the insane mind, — Louie received a compensation covered accidental injury.
The majority opinion quotes from Hudson v. Roberts, 75 Idaho 224, 229, 270 P.2d 837; Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 1, secs. 11.20 and 11.21, pp. 136-137, and 58 Am.Jur., Workmen’s Compensation, sec. 265, p. 766, on the proposition that where the workman receives personal injury through the animosity of another, wholly disconnected with the employment, the injury does not arise out of the employment. None of those authorities involve the insane mind as causative of the injury. Moreover, Hudson v. Roberts, supra, recognizes the rule, that where the conditions of the employment have the *353effect of exposing the workman to an assault it is generally held, in the absence of extenuating factors, that a resulting injury is compensable.
The majority opinion points to Louie v. Bamboo Gardens, 67 Idaho 469, 185 P.2d 712, 714, as distinguishable from the present case because the evidence in the Louie case did not disclose personal trouble between the injured workman and the assailant, and further showed that the assailant was not the employer. The Louie case is not so distinguishable from the present case.
This Court in the Louie case adopted the view that compensation must be awarded where the orbit of the employment brings the workman to the place of danger, although only in retrospect can it be seen to have been a place of danger due to a human agency. This Court in the Louie case carried that view a step further by extending the causative factor of injury to the human agency of delusion of the insane mind seeking out the particular victim, rather than killing indiscriminately. In the Louie case, Hong entertained the delusion that Louie belonged to a tong which sought to kill Hong for certain reasons, which was an insane obsession. Hong entered the restaurant where Louie worked and fired three shots, one striking Louie. While the Court remarked that there was no evidence indicating that Hong was looking for Louie, the Court added:
It may, however, be of no canee as to whether or not said Hong was looking for Tom Louie at the time he shot him and had either a real or imaginary grievance against him. The fact remains that it was an accidental injury and under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, claimant and appellant is entitled to receive compensation as a result of said injury.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court relied heavily upon the lunatic assault cases from the District of Columbia and Colorado, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, 66 App.D.C. 160, 85 F.2d 417, and London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. McCoy, 97 Colo. 13, 45 P.2d 900, and concluded:
“ * * * the injury was the result of a risk to which appellant was subjected in the course of his employment, and to which he would not have been su-bj ected had he not been so employed. * * * It was his employment that placed him in the position and environment wherein he was assaulted and sustained the accidental injury.”
Hudson v. Roberts, supra, also recognizes that rule.
The majority opinion cites Hawkins v. Portland Gas Light Co., 141 Me. 288, 43 A.2d 718; Wells v. Robinson Construction Co., 52 Idaho 562, 16 P.2d 1059; I.C., sec. 72-201, on the proposition that there must be a causal connection between the employ*354ment and the injury, which is true. There is a wealth of authority, however, as will be hereinafter shown, to the. effect that the insane mind, by whomsoever possessed, whether by the stranger, the co-employee, or the employer, if causative of personal injury to a workman, compels compensation.
Where a workman receives personal injury during working hours upon the employer’s premises, growing out of an assault by a drunken, crazy or insane person, the injury is compensable. Louie v. Bamboo Gardens, 67 Idaho 469, 185 P.2d 712; Hudson v. Roberts, 75 Idaho 224, 230, 270 P.2d 837; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, 66 App.D.C. 160, 85 F.2d 417; Christiansen v. Hill Production Co., 262 App.Div. 379, 29 N.Y.S.2d 24; Katz v. A. Kadans & Co., 232 N.Y. 420, 134 N.E. 330, 23 A.L.R. 401; Gargano v. Essex County News Co., 129 N.J.L. 369, 29 A.2d 879; Giracelli v. Franklin Cleaners & Dyers, 132 N.J.L. 590, 42 A.2d 3; Associated Employers Lloyds v. Wiggins, Tex.Civ. App., 208 S.W.2d 705; McLean’s Case, 323 Mass. 35, 80 N.E.2d 40.
Where the workman receives such injury inflicted 'by a drunken, crazy or insane co-employee, the injury is compensable. Perez v. Fred Harvey, Inc., 54 N.M. 339, 224 P.2d 524; Anderson v. Security Bldg. Co., 100 Conn. 373, 123 A. 843, 40 A.L.R, 1119; Chadwick v. White Provision Co., 82 Ga.App. 249, 60 S.E.2d 551.
Where the workman receives such injury inflicted by the drunken, crazy or insane person, who was the employer while sane, the injury is compensable. Davis v. Bennett, D.C.Mo., 114 F.Supp. 790; Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co., 217 Ark. 350, 230 S.W.2d 28; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Windham, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 984.
Both the workmen’s compensation law and the decisions of this Court admonish the Industrial Accident Board to make inquiries and investigations as shall be deemed necessary. I.C., sec. 72-604. In Nistad v. Winton Lumber Co., 59 Idaho 533, 537, 85 P.2d 236, 237, it is stated:
“ ‘It becomes the duty of the board to make full and exhaustive inquiry (citation), and to that end the board may not only examine any competent witness at the conclusion of his direct and cross examination upon all matters material and relevant to any issue, but it may also subpoena and examine other competent witnesses.’ ”
Feuling v. Farmers’ Co-operative Ditch Co., 54 Idaho 326, 334, 31 P.2d 683; Pierstorff v. Gray’s Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 450, 74 P.2d 171; McGarrigle v. Grangeville Elec. L. & P. Co., 60 Idaho 690; 97 P.2d 402; Watkins v. Cavanagh, 61 Idaho 720, 107 P.2d 155; Dehlin v. Shuck, 63 Idaho 620, 124 P.2d 244; Lay v. Idaho State School, 64 Idaho 455, 133 P.2d 923; Hagadone v. Kirkpatrick, 66 Idaho 55, 58, 154 P.2d 181; Zipse v. Schmidt Bros., 66 Idaho 30, 37, 154 P.2d 171.
*355The order of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation should be reversed and the cause remanded to the Board with directions to reopen the proceeding and receive further evidence relating to the question of Searles’ sanity at the time he shot and killed Devlin, and thereupon to make a finding thereon, and enter its order or award accordingly.
TAYLOR, C. J., concurs in this dissent