*1 n essentialelement alleged. it was not because defend- jury

'The court advises mistake plea insanity, ignorance or

ant’s act, fact, misfortune unconsciousness husband, accident, coercion death, justification or excuse

threat of cases; yet none

in murder negative alleged informa-

of these defenses is

tion. such defenses raised Where accused the court must instruct applicable

jury as to law. That

(cid:127)court did this case. repeated

Even without ad- legislative

monition the courts should causes determine

upon their upon merits rather than tech-

nical trivia. judgment should be affirmed.

310 P.2d 1089 MILLER, Claimant-Respondent,

Mervin H. COUNTY, Idaho,

BINGHAM Em- State of ployer, Fund, and State Sure- Insurance ty, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8518.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

2,May 1957. May

Rehearing Denied 1957. *2 Smith, Gen., tty.A Glenn A.

Graydon W. Gen., Atty. appellants. Asst.

Coughlan,

n Anderson Blackfoot, Beebe, for re- &

spondent.

SMITH, Justice. *3 It is respondent admitted that on March 25, 1955, at the time of the happening of described, the event hereinafter en- was gaged in employment; the duties of his al- so, that eight some hours afterward he evi- personal denced injury which had resulted violence to his structure of body, in that he suffered a hemorrhage artery of a branch an supplying right of brain, cortex his produced of com- plete permanent paralysis of his left leg. arm and left Respondent, as supervisor weed control County, appellant Bingham with head- Blackfoot, quarters after at attendance to employment pertaining duties Boise, returning to Blackfoot in a mo- was by employer. him his vehicle furnished tor high- point had reached on the When occurred, causing an subjected injury, an as way Hill he was King near defined Ac- (Emphasis law.” Industrial this supplied.) respect to which event with found, cident Board accordance ‘injury’ “The terms ‘personal in- evidence, as follows: jury,’ as the same are used in law, * * * shall be construed suddenly to include only “Claimant an injury accident, caused in a near involved above warning and without defined, which results in travel- violence to vehicle collision with another ** physical structure of the direction; body. other said ing in the same claim- path of vehicle swerved into The described event fulfills certain of the claimant was said ant’s vehicle while requirements statutory definition to overtake lawfully attempting accident, unexpected, since it was unde- vehicle; by sudden pass other said signed, unforeseen; unlooked for and it swerv- application brakes full happened suddenly, and was connected with vehicle; avoided claimant ing his industry, definitely and was located ve- striking said other narrowly missed place to time and occurred. How- four approximately margin by a hicle ever, a statutory requirement further must were automobiles both and while feet met, e., event, i. such to constitute an ac- speed estimated rate traveling at a cident purview within the of the workmen’s hour; other said per fifty miles to be compensation law, must have caused the chil- small containing several vehicle, personal injury. stopped.” dren, never question then, The which must be an- error assignments of by their Appellants is, swered the described event cause —did erroneously found Board contend respondent’s personal injury? I.C. sec. personal injury received question requires 72-201. The a review of arising of and in out by an accident caused evidence presents since it the matter of employment. course sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the Industrial part: provides Accident Board. 72-201 sec. I.C. Board found: “ *4 law, as used ‘Accident/ “Claimant, as proximate a direct and unexpected, undesigned, and means sudden, unexpected of said mishap, result or and untoward unlooked for episode, and suddenly incident and connect- im- event, happening was unforseen mediately seriously frightened and industry in which it and oc- with ed thereby; fright definitely which said locat- shocked and can be curs, and which immediately place manifested was when and shock to time ed as system, weakness, nervous in- the shock to claimant’s feeling claimant vas- which in turn caused cerebral nausea, chilliness, voluntary shaking, accident, sufficiently was violent cular difficulty to inability except with injury produce to to and did thoughts, immediate gather his body claimant’s structure as manifes- numbness in his head. These hereinbefore found.” thereafter with some- tations continued lessening degree until retirement what suf- Respondent diagnosed having was entirely never evening, but the same accident with fered a cerebral vascular the inci- hours after him. Several left body paralysis which left side his on the episode above described dent and leg. The and left included his left arm retirement, mani- claimant before experi- frightening event of the untoward paleness extremely and an tired fested subjected ence which was ap- appearance; suffered a loss of the near automobile collision was related experienced a petite and diffi- definite hypothetically Hoge, respond- one of culty slurring articulation or of his physicians; attending ent’s testimony on speech. appears: direct examination branch thereafter cerebral dent, March “Upon found or some vascular to be a 1955, happening arteries of the time about 6:00 accident claimant suffered a during hemorrhage diagnosed A.M., said acci- brain period of a which whether or not lar accident? A. ^[*] could probably ^[*] ^[*] have, has Do been you caused this cerebral vascu- and in have an related to that sudden incident Well, my opinion, opinion it certainly caused as to did. right cerebral cortex, pro- ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] per- complete in claimant duced say many "A. I will strokes fol paralysis the left arm and manent upsets emotional low sometimes not leg. left immediately but hours after and days after.” precip- immediate, direct and “The Hoge cross examination Dr. On testified: vascular cerebral of said itating cause * * * The most likely “A. diag- sudden, frightening,- accident is, type nosis, that of cerebral vascular unlooked undesigned and unexpected, accident, be cerebral hemorrhage, of March afternoon they commonly call what stroke or strain, apoplexy. produced tension nervous anxiety and claimant by the happening thereof; ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] *5 * * * you opin- have Do an “Q. experience most of them my In

“A. probable cause exertion, ion what was the physical as to extreme after come * * * my of stroke? A. It is anxiety. excitement, exertion, or ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] opinion a good probability exists symptoms progression Doctor, condition “Q. recognized which became aas finally exertion physical a same in strain began shortly stroke after the near ac- fright? a sudden as it is from * * * cident on road. * * * * * * stance. sure on “A. Well, the blood the heart vessels puts in either more pres- in- observations “A. ^[*] * * ^[*] * in ^[*] there have been medical, ^[*] experience ^[*] many ^[*] an individual is predisposed who be com- they would “Q. So to a cerebral vascular accident seems to Com- they not? parable, would have the accident during periods occur parable. physical fatigue severe or severe ****** fatigue emotional or a severe emotional *** minutes few just a “A. upset even less defined words or ar- get can an pressure increased Those things events. have occurred hours for leak tery out to blow with sufficient regularity many little afterwards, just a hours hours neurologists practitioners be one, maybe. opinion predisposed indi- ****** physical viduals fatigue and emotional * * * may have been There “A. and emotional strain can the vessel. weakness preexisting events, precipitating my and in own upset would However, experience, I have seen a number of pose dilation Dr. cause the vessel ^[*] Anderson, appellant’s remaining at- " *. either increase and also vessel a stroke and would cause pressure within or thrombosis. spasm predis and. probability ent at the time of the incident. cases in probability.” And those which such factors were in this case? A. factors, are They they pres- on ex- The then testified direct doctor further stated that physician, tending hypo- opinion hemorrhage probably the basis the evidence oc- on amination stated, including history before went sleep curred thetically 25, 1955, evening of March after having doctor obtained. His testi- ex- which case experi- perienced frightening the untoward part: appears mony produce day. can and emotional strain of that afternoon during ence has on accident such cerebral vascular doctor from the Nothing elicited been described here? conflicted with cross examination ****** expressed examination. theories on direct theory.” di- appellants, recognized “A. It is a Howard, called *6 neg- a testimony not The then could doctor’s assumed that

rect examination he stated practice ative that in character. stated positive as He a statement to whether make re- Again re- he had never seen cases. between such there was a causal connection the doctor verting strain. the medical theories spondent’s the emotional stroke and anxiety, tension recognized However, that emotional recognized theo- the medical pressure, fright, by elevating the blood ries of such causal connection. cross On can be precipitating of a stroke. factors posi- examination the doctor testified more tively: Kiefer, appellants, stated by Dr. called * * * opinion a causal that his there was not

“Q. Then recognize experience which connection between the that there can relationship be a be- highway on strain, tween emotional anxiety, ten- recog- cerebral vascular then accident. He sion, and the happening of stroke? a theories, the other nized medical as did Well, A. certainly be, there yes. can ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] physicians, as applicable to the case by the ^[*****] ^[*] following testimony on cross examination: * * * emotion, * * * “Q. Now, does “Q. strain fright term I include anxiety can be a precipitating cause? physiological that reactions the human certainly so, yes. A. I think I certain- body fright, upon has to have effect ly agree with that.” body? The the arteries of by appellants Dr. Blackburn called testi- causes an increased strain on [that] hypothetically examination, fied on direct the vessel wall because of the increased opinion there was reasonable no pressure. blood rspondent’s factual connection between ex- * * * “Q. Then emotion can be perience highway subsequent precipitating factor a cerebral examination, however, stroke. cross On hemorrhage? A. Yes.” recognized Dr. Blackburn the medical the- then stated that with doctor a slow leak ory physicians, as other did the as follows: appreciable pass time could pa- before well-recognized It is a fact * * * in, ralysis such “a sets matter of things that such min- as excite- ment, confusion, restlessness, very anxiety hours.” utes few

9á - feel felt, ball of and I recognized sudden fire. generally

The doctors weakening was arteriosclerosis, now that his death causes cause of since by this shock vessels, associated hastened fact is a condition of blood Howard, has caused from the ball of fire which hemorrhage. with cerebral * * opinion stop expressed beating his heart to by appellants, called * * presence artery respondent’s coronary occlusion of a case since detected, the of some arteriosclerosis reasoning adopted following This Court by the strain, produced emotional stress and case of dissenting opinion precip- event, was frightening untoward Co., F. 141 Neb. Bekeleski v. O. Neal hemorrhage. cerebral itating cause of 741, 744, worthy of ac N.W.2d as more ceptance : con physical nowas that there The fact the accident respondent and tact between “I am inclined that the law- to think by immaterial; announced makers, rule is such the use the term ‘violence Fund, Dredge physical body,’ in Roberts this Court to the structure of 975, 978, fol P.2d directing body meant an animate with a Idaho nerves, containing blood, brain lows : sensitive fibers and convolutions. The brain is pre- considering “The authorities part structure of the *7 holding there point are uniform cise body. per- Without there could it be no between physical contact need not be an employee’s formance of Ac- duties. consti- person to the accident cidental violence to the brain and re- injury.” an accidental tute disability sulting may be difficult to Fund, supra, Rob- Dredge v. In Roberts plaintiff prove, but was rational before standing out- employee, was erts, dredge the accident and irrational afterward. sub- power surrounding a fence a metal side pressure blood higher Her and her from feet station, 1000 about situated rapid. more pulse pupils of her employee company power when dredge, eyes posture were dilated and her ab- fuse, where- out replace burned to started She had tremors and normal. was un- by a attended resulted short circuit upon a manner, to walk her usual able all as The death of the fall of fire. and a roar properly by majority opin- indicated resulting from employee occurred dredge ion, but seems me these results of to shock, by an attend- summarized accident evidence ‘violence to physician: ing body,’ structure within * * * meaning compensation law.” a shock to mean “A. Fund, flash, you Also, Dredge Court Roberts might this v. by a sudden system quoted approval from supra, with the case mind to see by a blow to his say

95 Collett, respondent may 172 Geipe, The fact that have been v. Norman Inc. J. 887, 165, 836, A.L.R. Md. 190 109 with arteriosclerosis which tended afflicted vessels, his blood follows: weaken and that ar- to regarded is a condition teriosclerosis is perceived “It not that there affiliated with cerebral occlusion also im- in law fundamental difference material. causatively principle injury between an cut being vessel resulting from a blood Nothing is contained the work arti- by an one broken or crushed and compensation pro that limits men’s law its vessel blood ficial distension of who, previous in to visions workmen exertion apprehension, or fright, from jury, perfect were in sound condition and consequence directly proximately a health; Pan in McNeil v. for as stated of an accidental event.” Co., 773, 793, handle 203 Lumber 34 Idaho comparable cases, following 1068, See P. 1075: also here, in each one under consideration “ * * * Compensation Law our up- compensation was which an award of * * makes no distinction between although injury personal account of held on healthy unhealthy employés.” between personal contact was no

there 1087, Larson, 136, In P. re 48 Idaho 279 employee: Yates injured and the 1089, appears following: 538, Collieries, etc., 2 K.B. Kirby, v. South prescribes State 418; Montgomery v. “Our no standard statute 3 B.W.C.C. 44, fitness, 178 Com’r, makes distinction between 116 W.Va. no Compensation Co., which, unsound, 246 Iron the sound 425; Charcoal Monk v. S.E. 354; true, Pub- Reynolds compensation v. the act being under 193, 224 N.W. Mich. implied warranty 21 Transport, is not based Coordinated lic Service N.J. Collett, 435; perfect Geipe immunity latent v. health or A.2d Super. 91 County, 253 or unknown tendencies disease.” Westchester supra; v. Church 581; Geltman 859, 1 N.Y.S.2d App.Div. Taylor Co., In & Idaho v. Federal M. S. 59 Co., Supply & Linen Reliable N.J.L. 728, 730, following 81 P.2d is found the 1465; Charon’s 894, 139 A.L.R. A.2d statement: 511; Bur- 694, 75 N.E.2d Case, Mass. *8 suscepti- “A weakened condition or Corporation Hagood, v. 177 Mills lington bility injury preclude does not re- 291; Bor- Van Ness v. 204, S.E.2d 13 Va. covery.” 673, Haledon, 45 A.2d 24 of ough N.J. Independent Hanson v. See also School Annotation, 109 29, also A.L.R. see Misc. 11-J, 81, 513; Dist. 50 294 Idaho P. Scar- 892. 96 episodes 180, recognize Beardmore, frightening 12 theories 52 Idaho

borough v. bring about condi- 771; Idaho and events can and do Herrington, 61 Young v. P.2d tension, 441; University 183, of tions stress strain Hamlin of P.2d v. 99 625; the 570, constitute causative Idaho, Wood sufficient to cause or 104 P.2d 61 Idaho acci- Co., vascular 64 Idaho factors cerebral other bury Arata of or v. Frank B. Fruit whose 72- some individuals 227, I.C. secs. dents in the case of P.2d 870. See 130 also somewhat separation may of become have which forbid blood vessels 72-311 323 and disability infirmity where weakened. preexisting or total injury is disability caused the the evidence, conflicting, though The permanent. aforesaid, competent, and is substantial and Acci finding Industrial sustains the of the returning to definition Again frightening dent sudden Board the I.C. injury out in personal set an accidental event, subjected, respondent was to which shock, though 72-201, an emotional sec. pre factor in or was the causative caused event, sudden, untoward and unforeseen abe e., the personal injury, i. cipitating unless such accident constitute an cannot respondent by which hemorrhage cerebral resulting is or causative causes event comparatively became afflicted within is principle stated injury. This personal of said happening short time after 165, 840], Md. 190 Geipe v. Collett [172 caused, event; been having language as follows: supra, in such injury, event factor causative " * * * personal in- an accidental purview an accident within constituted place injury a nerv- takes if jury the Workmen’s Com sec. 72-201 of I.C. produces not a mere shock ous therefore, evidence, The pensation Law. physiological impulse but a finding sustain the Board’s sufficient to of an un- proximate effect injury as injury caus personal respondent received event, which unexpected oc- foreseen or arising by an out ed reasonable design in the curs without employment. of his course duties, employee’s performance Constitution, V, 9, Art. sec. Idaho ” [citations.] jurisdiction limit the sec. 72-609 I.C. appeals Supreme from the consid- Court Indus evidence, in the under case respect a review of ques Accident Board to conflicting in trial here, is eration only. sudden, Wells Potlatch frighten- of law For untoward tions whether 202; ests, was sub- P.2d event, 67 Idaho Yanzick v. ing Minerals, factor of the causative Idaho Sunset P.2d caused jected, However, Hospital 696; Application evidence Idaho injury. Asso personal ciation, respect that medical 76 Idaho 277 P.2d 287. conflicting in the not

97 TAYLOR, JJ., PORTER the evi concur. only in cases where It is dispute, and not conflicting is not dence McQUADE, Justice, with whom the undis to application of the law

that the KEETON, Justice, Chief (dis concurs question law. facts raises puted John senting) . 617, Co., Lbr. 37 Idaho v. A. C. White ston Copper 979; Anaconda v.

217 P. Burchett Miller, Mervin respondent, H. 515; 524, Horst Co., 283 P. Min. 48 Idaho employed by Bingham County, State of 58, 286 Co., Oil 49 Idaho v. Southern Idaho Idaho, supervisor, as weed and had been so 154, Cramer, 369; Idaho 59 P. Rabideau v. employed June, since 1952. day On the Owyhee 403; Howard v. Texas 81 P.2d occurrence of incident for which Co., 707, 115P.2d 749. Min. & 62 Dev. Idaho received an award of com- absolutely un Also, findings are where the pensation, he been attending an Idaho a mat may supported, they reviewed Noxious Weed Association meeting at Equity Ex Bybee ter of law. v. Idaho Boise, county Idaho. The commissioners 730; re 396, In 65 P.2d change, 57 Idaho Bingham County had granted per- him 24; v. 803, Paull Black, 80 P.2d 58 Idaho mission to attend the conference and use 594, 124 Corp., 63 Idaho Preston Theatres county-owned pickup as the means of trav- 107, 562; Idaho Jarvis, 64 P.2d Benson v. el. 127 P.2d 784. testimony of

The the claimant will serve Ac Industrial findings incident, portray testimony is competent, Board, supported by cident when as follows: will though conflicting substantial evidence “Q. Now, any was there unusual Golay appeal. v. Stod on

not be disturbed event or incident which occurred 1002; dard, 168, Knight 89 P.2d 60 Idaho during trip time to Blackfoot? 456; Younkin, 612, P.2d Idaho v. 61 105 yes Yes, or no. A. there was. Just Ass’n, 64 Idaho Canning Cole v. Fruitland Bros., “Q. 603; 505, Zipse And where did that occur in 134 v. P.2d Schmidt 171; journey? 30, Herman v. course of I 66 154 P.2d A. Idaho Foundry Co., say approximately Hardware five out Coeur & miles d’Alene 167; Highway King McGee v. Hill believe 208 P.2d 69 Idaho —I 686; Lim Koontz, 223 P.2d Idaho is isn’t it? 293, 281 P.2d Bybee, Idaho

precht “Q. highway? main A. It 1047. highway King On the main between Falls, the Industrial Accident Hill and or Twin The award of Jerome respondent. through Costs affirmed. Board there. outh, seats,

“Q. I pass Glenns two but one door. through Did. Ferry? it guess wouldn’t want to model Yes. year it wasn’t a new because you pass through Bliss? Did was, say, possibly car. It I would A. Yes. ’51, could don’t have been ’50 but “Q. That A. Yes. highway? know for sure. *10 just you “Q. point, would At this “Q. many you Did oc- how observe the your words to in own describe cupants Yes, in the ? two were car A. I was place? A. Board what took kiddies, they boys little or whether were home, there coming driving along girls I don’t kiddies know. Two little passed a that in of me a car front was in driving. the front seat with a man this on automobile and another truck “Q. Now, you whether would state drove got past and he and as highway, Plymouth or not the driver of the.blue regular his main line on into the back gave you any his any signal kind of him pass traffic, to turned out I line change intention to from a I direct truck, just course this one well as on highway. A. say, There no about, car- was four I’d within got signal given. directly to turned him he lengths mid- line the white left across “Q. you Then would continue de- to me. in front of highway dle of your scribe in own words what took in Now, you at time place were “Q. pulled ? A. As he in' across front (inter- in the— A. or lane passing immediately of me I put my foot on the lane, passing in I was rupting) stopped brakes and within about four passing inwas pickup feet yes, right car at the door of his I say automobile. will just gear. before stopped I the two little kiddies were the car you overtaking “Q. Were romping on the front seat I way? think slowly, or in what A. or rapidly they say attention, pass- had distracted woul- father’s if imagine, I Well, I father, it was their 50 miles an hour. to around where he was speed wasn’t ing any paying attention to me I describe, then, because your own “Q. Just could see had his he arm out pushing well, you I ask this will first: words — them back on the seat. pulled the car that you describe Did you way? A. front over “Q. Now, the driver of the Plym- now, just no. this didn’t automobile, stop? outh did he A. stopped is- what I mean. A. one us -That It Neither “Q. get out of Plymouth, Plym- dark blue a blue the car and talk one another. was ' n “Q. “Q. all or stop you experience at Did any Did he come shak- ing? my Yes, body whole was way? A. He did continue on shaking. way the left side continued on his highway. “Q. you Would state whether that was voluntary involuntary? IA. “Q. you just Would describe to think it experience. was due to this feel- Board what reaction “Q. you Could shaking control the you moment when ings that had at that No, time? A. I couldn’t. you pulled fellow across front of “Q. you Did feel ill or nauseated? stop fright- ? A. It came to a A. I did. I felt my nauseated in stom- just didn’t know me much so that I ened ach. my muscles just stomach going to anything, exactly what tightened up really until I felt nause- visualize what happen. I couldn’t ated. I had Boise left before I had good happen. I hadn’t If dinner, course, and had empty right in I would have smashed brakes stomach. probably killed him and middle of you experience Did any head- good someone, were but brakes ache at immediately time follow- it had stop, and *11 car to the I skidded ing? headache; ItA. wasn’t a just in of it because back sand in the lot my kind of a in numbness I head. keep carry sand to country you this was, didn’t it know what couldn’t tell going in bad weather.

them you it just a, how was. was It kind of well, my just brain didn’t seem to func- Now, you the “Q. describe would exactly tion, but it wasn’t headache, a had, you physical re- feelings that the no. you experienced that that at actions

time? A. Well, I was so fright- ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] “Q. you Did come directly my home? seemed turn that stomach ened stopped A. I at Bliss and got a sand- head, My from nervousness. it over wich and cup a of coffee because I just kind of a blank. I was couldn’t hadn’t had dinner and felt a lit- my thoughts together very eas- gather tle weak from shock and thought just people but I could ily, see those in help get that would me to over it. thought after I had that car I that was them, to hit you and scared me going “Q. home, so As on traveled hardly that I couldn’t do anything. you you describe Well, bad how felt? A. think I don’t could have said a just feeling I I had in my word. that stomach slept rectly night he During to bed. the nervousness, time, I couldn’t that all the very soundly, upon awakening in the and very because unusual it. It shake was o’clock, as was his usual morning the coun- about 6 business, my job my in habit, twenty- paralyzed twenty, discovered that was drove, oh, ty, I around speech all left and that his was on extremities year five miles thousand Upon but I of Dr. slurred. direction Walter highways, all kinds of roads and immediately feeling. Hoge, G. he was removed that just couldn’t shake hospital. his home to the time, if Now, what about Blackfoot, An- recall, you arrive Dr. Walter H. Hoge did G. L. respondent o’clock. About five derson examined the Idaho? Blackfoot, Bingham Hospital Memorial pro- you first did “Q. And where Idaho, morning. that testified Both doctors my directly to drove ? A. ceed paralysis extremities complete County Agent’s office, in the which was respondent, left side building, and Post Office Office finding Industrial Accident made a Board Penney C. I went to from there J. as follows: store, works, then my wife where “ ** * claimant a total suffered home.” from there disability by permanent complete and Miller Mr. discloses the record Thereafter paralysis leg of his left and left arm a nause- had shaky and still felt and nervous equivalent by amputation to the loss This Miller. met Mrs. when he feeling ated hip at the and an arm at leg Later hours. several feeling persisted for shoulder.” his wife respondent drove evening, miles west five about some friends question argued No has been raised or they Idaho, Groveland, Blackfoot to employment concerning respond- engagement. a dinner ent, only but there was no accident hungry, and ate feel he didn’t testified and there no causal connection be- dis- further He dinner. part only injury. tween the incident and the How- to be muffled seemed his voice closed ever, principal assignment of error of muscles manipulate his throat couldn’t appellant is the Industrial Accident feel could, and continued usually as he finding the Board claimant suf- erred *12 in his stomach. distress and injury by sickness personal arising fered a employment. of his out of and in the course o’clock night, or 10 9:30 About 25, 1955, took cases, compensation In claimant March must Blackfoot, back injury -to personal by friends first caused and an wife show a acci- friends, home to the and arising out and the course proceeding dent of his employment, to his home and di- returned own went and has the burden of prov- then

101 directly occupational result preponderance diseases as ing by case 107, injury.” Jarvis, Idaho an 64 Benson v. evidence. 784; Bohemian Brew- v. 127 P.2d In reviewing proof Jensen respond 442; 679, 683, eries, Inc., P.2d 135 64 Idaho ent, wherein he attempted to establish Co., 64 Elevator v. Coast

Wade Pacific a causal relationship between the incident 894; 176, Morrison Dunn v. 129 P.2d Idaho on the highway paralysis, and the the court 210, 398. Inc., Knudsen, 260 P.2d 74 Idaho upon is called to review field of work provides: sec. Code 72-201 Idaho compensation men’s injury that deals with shock, resulting from fright, and other injury.— compensation for “Right to origin. not of conditions traumatic After injury personal If a workman receives an cases, apparent examination of it arising out by caused an accident particular states are this divided on any employment in the course type of However, award. in reviewing the Compensa- by the Workmen’s covered cases which compensation, award ap it surety employer or the tion Law his pears that there was a direct causal connec pay compensation in the amounts shall tion in injury immediate, persons person or herein- and to the substantial, obviously connected with specified. after the incident. The which incident “ law, ‘Accident,’ used form the basis of an “accident” was one unexpected, undesigned, and an means which impact would have upon tremendous mishap, or untoward unlooked system any person nervous who event, suddenly and con- happening would be connected therewith or ob an industry in which it with the nected server Kirby, thereof. Yates v. &c. South definitely lo- occurs, can be which Collieries, Limited, 538, 2 K.B. 3 B.W.C.C. place when cated as to time 418, C.A.; Montgomery v. State Com de- occurred, injury, causing an pensation Commissioner, 44, 116 W.Va. 178 fined this law. 425; Co., S.E. Monk v. Charcoal Iron 193, 354; 246 224 ‘injury’ ‘personal Mich. N.W. Roberts “The v. terms Fund, 380, Dredge 975; 71 Idaho 232 in this injury,’ used P.2d same as the only Reynolds v. Public include Service law, shall construed Coordinated 528, 21 Transport, N.J.Super. accident, as 91 435, an injury A.2d caused 214, 11 certification denied defined, results violence 94 above A.2d N.J. Inc., 215; Geipe, body. Norman v. Collett, structure 172 J. Md. 190 A. in no case be con- 887; shall A.L.R. The said terms County, Westchester occupational Church v. dis- to include App. strued 581; N.Y.S.2d only Div. such non- Geltman form ease Re *13 102 Co., Supply 443, nothing by' 128 There is in madfe

liable Linen the award N.J.L. Doremus, prem- 894; upon 114 indicating legal 25 Hall the Board A.2d v. what N.J.L. 47, 369; Case, they developed theory 321 Mass. the set ise the that' A. Caron’s 175 694, 511; Cor by Mills of the Burlington circumstances related 75 N.E.2d 204, S.E.2d of poration 13 would accident within the terms Hagood, v. Va. be an 177 certainly award to our the cases Among 291. refused statute. Most cases which Oil compensation compensation go not as far awarding v. Standard do Toth 81; Bekel Co., 1, gone' N.E.2d as Board has 113 the Industrial Accident 160 Ohio St. 657, 4 Co., Neb. 141 in this instance. eski O. Neal v. F. & 741, Lacey Washburn

N.W.2d and v. court, many cases this as well- as In 574, 724. Co., Williams 309 Pa. jurisdictions, has held that courts other Miller, events, ordinary happenings of of course claimant, H. Mervin The life, everyday con the normal deterioration of the facts to testified only who witness instances, body, make fail many other to to and served which cerning the events upon other to conclude the basis which being no become There up incident. Com Industrial there was an accident. which circumstances witnesses O’Malley, 124 St. Ohio statements mission Ohio v. way with the any conflict all 842. is that 178 N.E. claimant, the conclusion In undisputed. and true the facts are principal question to be determined conflict not evidence cases where the sufficiency evidence, not the but rath- application dispute, not in ing and er, does this set of circumstances warrant raises undisputed evidence such law to conclusion, law, as a matter of one not law and question of strictly a the claimant suffered an here- accident as D.& Owyhee M. v. Texas Howard fact. by inbefore defined statute 749; Colson Co., 115 P.2d Idaho State of Idaho? It must be remembered 1049. 252 P.2d Steele, Idaho general Compen- that as rule a Workmen’s insurance, sation funds be for including cannot used up leading The events but injuries are rather to used for suf- respond- by the testified incident arising fered an accident out of and driv- course of only events ent were employment. very in- spectacular the course of It is automobile, nothing ing his testimony occurred, teresting to note such magnitude doc- or of tremendous tors as whether there was causal hereinbefore ‘in cases out is set connection between and the fright, for an award cited, make do injury, purpose not the writer condition other shock, exposure, or testimony points out the of each doctor. origin. traumatic

10S Hoge, one, wife, called Walter G. witness our record there: she claimant, testified: told me all morning, this morn- ing of the stroke. said She “Q. Doctor, say can whether driver had into run the road him off thrombus or embolism very pit the barrel he had been say No, sir, I can’t that time? A. shaky that, also excited since *14 definitely. important that he had attended it, “Q. words, In as I take other meeting evening. that you one of those say would not which “Q. Well, now, say you the tension impossi- It is situations he had? A. any— of the hours Is before. there certainty. say ble to with A. (interrupting) are the two Those Well, “Q. symptoms are the the incidents. thrombosis, same, not, they for hemorrhage? produced “Q. embolism cerebral That tension, Yes, you what A. sir. are saying? Yes, A. sir.” Dr. L. H. Anderson was the second reason, you “Q. For that are not doctor testify claimant, the for then, I he had? A. stating, among things other testified that he had certainty.” stating am not with specialty a medicine, internal and had further The doctor testified: assigned been for about one and one-half “Q. going believe said years the function of neurology and meeting tension? A. could cause a psychiatry military in a hospital field in Yes, important meeting; business Germany. It is especially to be noted that sure.” Dr. Anderson had not examined the claim- further testified: Hoge Dr. ant, Miller, prior Mr. 26, 1955, to March facts, that state and therefore “Q. position From do was the same opinion toas the all of the other you have an cause of doctors who testified in vascular accident? this case. Dr. the cerebral Anderson secured back- his opinion, Well, my ground precipitating the information from both Mr. Miller wife, the cerebral vascular and his Laura 'cause of Miller. patient the tension which had

was the Anderson Dr. there stated positive no preceding in the undergone hours. test reliable to differentiate thrombosis Now, would there anything, hemorrhage, or thrombosis and hem- event particular preceding orrhage ruptured from a aneurysm. He it, precipitated your opin- hours described claimant’s case as one in Well, ion? A. there two a things which such .are determination would be diffi- 104= mouth, Miller in his impossible. Dr. fur- saliva Mrs.

cult, Anderson if not However, dying. Dr. An- thought he was claim- certain features ther testified “very continued, Mr. Miller looked pro- derson stroke was “a indicated the ant’s case hospital later pro- clear” slowly bright and thing possibly a gressive later, was evident days morning. Two thing.” gressive much worse stroke were effects of the Mr. Miller told him The witness said he they appeared. than first reaction after a near-accident similar a years opinion oc- before. On that Anderson stated his Mr. a number to talk for Miller’s casion, progressive stroke was a affair claimant unable minutes, shaky may felt for about which begun and he before the claimant have a few trip. testified arrived home Dr. Anderson from his witness an hour. half shaky feeling, pointed anyone out neither he saw similar nor else described claimant similar, quite after acci- immediately symptoms were the claimant after dent, only In this latter Miller’s word Hill. and “We have Mr. King incident near related, happened claim- it affected instance, for what and how Dr. Anderson opinion said in pickup the side him.” Dr. Anderson stopped ant symptoms probability good then started minutes and there was few road home; shortly a headache incident on noticed began after at this time *15 told Claimant highway. his head. on the left side of toward revulsion a Dr. Anderson he felt The next by three doctors were called morning, evening. Next food that Howard, the defendants. Dr. Richard P. left and the skin headache continued specialty medicine, who has a of internal head felt numb. side of his opinion testified that he had no as to Miller further Mrs. witness testified whether or not there was a causal con- speech was slurred him her husband’s nection between Miller’s and the told stroke dinner, have as would Hill, night King near incident Idaho. He ex- way- On the drinking. plained may if he had been been individual have an under- dinner, swerved the car home after disease which becomes so lying severe as of the road. In such right side a sudden stroke. an in- cause twice toward to may rupture stance, weakened blood vessels home', to the claimant went arriving Upon any hemorrhage cerebral cause immediately. and asleep almost and bed fell ' may time; or blood vessel a narrow until sleeping soundly the next still 'was He stagnant in it' becomes clots. His blood be awakened. and had to morning, unquestion- he said believed said, Dr. Howard skin terrible” —his “looked he wife suffered arterioscler- ably Miller ¡little Mr. was a lot and there blue awas. osis, may upset. way no persons so afflicted have There is I can see' evaluate, no, throm- a hemorrhage yes or from that doctor or strokes from can any upset any- bosis at time. whether that emotional thing do with this or to stroke not. On there are Howard further testified Dr. the basis of statistics it would be mere- circum- may certain factors —which under ly thing a coincidental because we will emotional factors —which stances be majority know that of strokes are vessels weakening hasten the of blood in no way related to emotional or through pressure or through increased physical upsets. particular In one in- However, he esti- artery. spasm of the dividual, I just can’t see a how doctor not per cent of strokes mated 60 to could a positive make statement either preceding way any related to definite way.” physical upsets preceding Blackburn, largely activity. upset is Charles An emotional R. a member of Medicine, be meas- subjective which cannot American Board of a matter Internal in- qualified by doctor, particularly after specialist ured as a a internal medi- Miller’s In Mr. cine or 24 : terval hours. “

case, he said: * * * I would be reluctant “ * * anxiety produced by believe that may at the have been he causally you.say, incident was developed stage he have where —as cause and effect —related with what night devel- clot that same a blood happened precipitating even aas cause night same re- oped hemorrhage a time interval involved because peaceful if he’d gardless been nothing evi- because there possibly quiet could have by a method to indicate dence previous have no week. You been the changes such might have occurred that, way don’t be- knowing after an incident would cause what such way doc- lieve there presumed away far and must be this stroke assess whether tor could clotting in the ves- have been a blood upset the to his emotional was related sels, rupture.” not day, certainly there is preceding condition nothing about Kiefer, Dr. Edward diplómate J. *16 day pre- preceding would the American have Board of the Neurological cipitated Surgeons, He had no excessive in answering hypothetical it. ques- night, activity preceding the tion physical as to whether there was causal only thing that could have connection the between facts pur- and of the ported an have been accident subsequent and the done it diag- accident, nosed cerebral vascular an- by condition. This was also confirmed Drs. swered : Howard, Blackburn, and Kiefer. No There

“A. no accident is connection.” within the mean- occurred ing statute, causal and there no ruling Therefore it is obvious that connection between singular event Board of one was on basis hemorrhage. cerebral vascular There testimony doctor’s out of five as to the are no cases in the entire United States relationship possibility be- was a there support that can the contention of the King tween the tension of the moment at claimant, the using of the Workmen’s hemorrhage Hill vascular cerebral Compensation fund as an insurance fund following morning. that was evident only will pur- serve defeat the intent and testimony It noted in the of Dr. was also poses thereof. L. Anderson the state of facts used H. The correct evaluation to detemine if arriving at his conclusion was him in occurred set forth Am. in 58 all the other slightly different Jur., 257; Compensation, Workmen’s sec. presumed All of other doctors doctors. p. 758: way continued immedi- the claimant “ * * * shortly general The most incident and there- rule of ately after lunch, application employment is that if th'e stopped for whereas Dr. An- after stopped brings it no risk in greater claimant with presumed the derson jury particular danger the scene of the from the minutes event a few peril directly persons that to gen than proceeded destina- then erally locality, in that whether em tion, he arrived about two so hours not, ployed exposed, there is later. produce could doctors, fied in effect attending cerebral In going produce it is tension. vascular over the important tension important hemorrhage .Dr. everyday living would testimony of all sufficient to Hoge testified that to,note they dinner to a meeting cause man testi- a- See ployment jury no causal connection between the em exposure, also 83 A.L.R. employment does arise out ^[*] *" and the injury 234; does injury, results, 139 A.L.R. 1472. bring employment. but that such in greater if award age should be reversed. particular Miller’s Mr.