Court Opinion

ID: 9644875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:07:09.483227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:24.090386
License: Public Domain

Roberts, J.,
dissenting. It seems to me that the decision herein requires a standard of proof for causation which is applied to negligence cases and which is not consistent with the objectives of the workmen’s compensation act. In my opinion the instant result constitutes an extension of the causation requirements heretofore stated and applied by this court in workmen’s compensation cases. See Carroll v. What Cheer Stables Co., 38 R. I. 421; Distante v. United Electric Rys., 53 R. I. 258; Di Libero v. Middlesex Construction Co., 63 R. I. 509; Nowicki v. Byrne, 73 R. I. 89; Remington v. Louttit Laundry Co., 77 R. I. 185; Corry v. Commissioned Officers’ Mess (Open), 78 R. I. 264; Palmer v. Friendly Pharmacy, Inc., 84 R. I. 98.
As this court said in Corry v. Commissioned Officers’ Mess (Open), supra, at page 267: “Here we are not dealing with a finding of fact but with the legal effect of uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence not inherently improbable as to whether petitioner’s injury arose out of *7and in the course of employment within the meaning of the statute.”
It is not disputed that petitioner fell in an alley on her employer’s premises; that 'because of her employment she would reasonably be expected to be in that place at that time; and that her disability directly resulted from injuries sustained by that fall. She is denied compensation because she was unable to prove the precise physical condition in the alley which caused her to lose her footing. In my judgment she proved all that any employee should be required to prove and all that any employee has been required to prove under the cases above cited.
It is to be noted that we are not dealing here with a case in which the precipitating incident affirmatively appears to have been disconnected with the employment. Nowicki v. Byrne, supra; Remington v. Louttit Laundry Co., supra. It is unquestioned that this petitioner sustained her injuries by falling in the alley controlled by her employer. I am simply unable to determine the exact physical condition in the alley that made her fall. In my view the proof of connection with employment is stronger in this case than was the proof in Corry v. Commissioned Officers’ Mess (Open) and Palmer v. Friendly Pharmacy, Inc., supra, and in both of those cases compensation was awarded.
As I read the majority opinion in this case the test of causation which is being applied is substantially the same as that which we have consistently applied in negligence cases. See Ziegler v. Providence Biltmore Hotel Co., 59 R. I. 326; Ashton v. Higgins, 80 R. I. 350. This court has clearly held that the showing of proximate cause required to afford recovery for negligence is not necessary in workmen’s compensation cases. Carroll v. What Cheer Stables Co., supra; Distante v. United Electric Rys., supra; Palmer v. Friendly Pharmacy, Inc., supra.
In my opinion the petitioner established a causal connection between her injuries and her employment by show*8ing that she suffered a physical impact with a specific portion of her employer’s premises. I am unable to accept the rule that an employee must show the precise physical instrumentality which created the physical impact resulting in injury.
Isidore Kirshenbaum, Louis Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor, for petitioner.
Boss, Conlan, Keenan, Bulman & Rice, John T. Keenan, for respondent.
Paulino, J. concurs in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts.