*1 construction, resolution of all and a strict YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, Douglas M. doubts, private, non-compen of a in favor Fidelity & surety. States sated United Poetker, (1913) Guaranty Co. VILLA, INC., SMALLEY'S CHICKEN 255, 263, 374. Accord Chicken, Kentucky Fried d/b/a N.E. at 3.

Matchett, 185 Ind. at Defendant-Appellee. contracts of applies rule No. 2-1083A365. Poetker, 180 Ind. suretyship. Accord Appeals of assuming, for Even 102 N.E. at 374. argument, that the consent of 19, 1984. interpreted as a con could be assignment 1, 1984. March Rehearing Denied ex suretyship-an argument not tract ar by appellant-appellant's pressly raised the rule is

gument is of no avail because construing contracts. applied in no there is have concluded

We unambiguous lan

need to construe

guage of the documents. instant case. application

rule has no that, in order to contends

Finally, Reeder shown to liability, her she must be

reaffirm express promise pay

have made an already concluded have

debt. Since we prior obligation expired never

that Reeder's consent, not address her we need can be of reaffirmation. same

issue there appellant's contention that

said of disputed issue of fact as to wheth-

exists a obligations her under

er she reaffirmed

lease. error, light Finding even no reversible Rodino, Elkhart, plaintiff- Samuel J. summary review of our standard on appellant. accordingly judg- affirm the judgments, Oberfell, Oberfell, May, Hell- James W. court. ment of the lower Bend, for Campiti, & South ing, Lorber defendant-appellee. ROBERTSON, J., RATLIFF, Judge. cur. THE OF CASE

STATEMENT appeals from Douglas Young Appellant an adverse determination hearing judge's denial affirming the compensation. We affirm. FACTS 10, 1980, Young injured his August On working employer's fast back Young's employment in- restaurant. food bending twisting in order to volved working After several perform his duties. *2 687 unexpected hours, Young turned and cause and the unexpected bent over to re- unexpected pair tongs. Under the trieve some chicken with a cause At that moment he was stricken a se- theory an 'accident' cannot occur in the pain in his subsequent vere lower back. A absence of some kind of increased risk or medical examination revealed a herniated hazard, fall, e.g., a slip, trip, unusual required surgery. dise which corrective exertion, machine, break, malfunction of Young's application for compen- workmen's collision, ete., which causes an hearing judge sation was denied Under unexpected theory result an appeal the denial affirmed was on to the may 'accident' occur everything where decision, Industrial Board. From that preceding injury normal, was Young appeals. now itself was unexpected, e.g., over, where a stoops, worker bends ISSUE turns, etc., something, lifts activity Young raises two issues on part duties, everyday is of his work may be consolidated. Combined and re- yet, bar, in unexpect- the case at he is phrased, this issue is as follows: edly injured. unexpected We shall use the

Did the result affirming Industrial Board errin ground denial of benefits on the theory in determining whether an acci- Young injury by did not suffer bar, accident dent occurred in the case at because unexpected meaning theory within the result is in of Workmen's Com- more pensation keeping Act? with the humanitarian Compensa- that underlie the Workmen's AND

DISCUSSION DECISION Act, tion required which the courts are deny- Industrial Board did not err in liberally construe favor of the worker. ing Since the evidence in the Young's claim for case at bar benefits. indicates the incident occurred while Ellis In eligible order to be for workmen's lifting steel, was engaged a roll of compensation benefits, must duties, in his normal work and since the "personal injury suffer a ... disabling lifting result from that event of arising out of and in the course of the expected, was neither foreseen nor § employment...." Ind.Code 22-8-2-2 hold that Ellis suffered an 'accident' in (1982) (emphasis supplied). In the instant the course of his [Foot case, the Industrial Board determined that [Emphasis in origi- *3 Humanitari- terminated because that our su it is clear used in Calkoun compensa- purpose, in its the workmen's as unexpected event court views the preme compensation to the in- provided tion act cause de the synonymous with tort con- regard to jured employee without Therefore, court in Ellis. by this scribed through- spread cepts. The cost was to be rule set out apply to the are bound we ultimately the con- industry and out the Calhoun, reservations notwiths our own employ- the act became the sumer. While rule, we reach applying tanding.1 remedy, it abolished tort ee's exclusive by reached the Indus conclusion the same involving provided fault and "com- cepts admission, appel By his own trial Board. personal injury or death pensation for ordinary doing nothing out of the lant was arising of and in the course of out being job. Merely performing his 22-8- employment." IND.CODE Sec. his dise herniat employment when place of 2-2. upon which to an insufficient basis ed is However, "by the choice of the words compensation a workmen's predicate legislature was unfortu accident'" of some untoward Absent evidence award. nate, early the courts on resurrected for event, the Industrial must conclude that we concepts and ghosts of the interred tort Young benefits. properly denied mishap developed phrase "unlooked for affirm the decision expected or de or untoward event Industrial Board.2 "by accident". signed" to define Industries, Inc., (1978) 269 v. Hillenbrand opinion. concurs with 1244. ROBERTSON, J., concurs. attempted to ameli More recent cases have phrase "unex definition with orate that NEAL, concurring. Presiding Judge, phrase seems to im The pected results". majority opinion as it is a I in the concur hold, that if an ply, the cases seem controlling application of case law correct by certain innate and injured respectfully I be interpreting the statute. he employment, predictable hazards of lieve, however, those cases the results of compensated. implies that not be will my coincide with are in error and views The surprise. as a injury must come expressed in his con Judge Ratliff's views injured worker and economic burden Cooper curring opinion Lovely Indus lightened the distinc his is not Products, App., Ind. trial for, injury was looked tion of whether his my fur I state views without 274. shall for, expected unexpected, or or unlooked dis re-examination ther though purpose of the designed, even authorities. cussed privation. is relief from want Simi act by ongoing laws, disability may caused larly, be Prior to workmen's ultimately inca employment that doctrine, concepts of stressful hedged with tort phrase is an The negligence, pacitates the worker. contributing fault, negligence, engraftment unnecessary and artificial rules, in- and assumed or fellow-servant upon the statute. employee's right risk, governed an curred Products, Inc., findings unsupported also assails the Cooper Lovely 1. See dispose because we the evidence. 274, 279-81, Ind.App., upon the rationale of Cal- based of the J., (1982) (Ratliff, concurring). denied houn, unnecessary appellant's to address it is remaining issue.

G89 The inquiry relevant should be disability

whether the or resulted or, employment in the words of statute, arose out of and in the course means, unless

self-induced, is not material A worker compensated

should injuries predictable

are an intrinsic and hazard of employment disability induced over

a course of time injuries as well as

are "unlooked for or untoward designed".

event not my

opinion, contemplates the act *4 rulings courts, or the statute

itself, should changed to reflect that

end. CORPORATION,

LAFAYETTE REALTY

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VONNEGUTS, INC., Vonnegut Hard Co., Inc., Schlage

ware Lock

Co., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-383 A95. Appeals notes omitted.] "such occurrence would not constitute an nal.]" injury arising accidental out of the course Ellis, 92-93, Ind.App. 174 366 N.E.2d at plaintiff's employment...." Record at 211-12. While it is unassailable that work finding contends that such liberally men's laws are to be contrary support to law. of his conten- construed, Ready Suburban Mix Concrete tion, Metals, Inc., he cites Ellis Hubbell Zion, (1983) Ind.App., 1241, 86, 207, Ind.App. 174 1242, denied, (1978). This court it is also clear that trans. denied there not- Ellis is the standard which we must ed: review the board's conclusions. defining "In the word 'accident' most Eilis, unexpected Subsequent cases follow the event theo to our decision in our ry supreme court enunciated Haskell Barker Car noted: [& - Brown, 178, App. Co. v. 67 Ind. 117 "It is well settled under our law that in 555). Certain confusion has arisen order to show an accident there must be attempt by the courts to identi unexpected some untoward or event. fy unexpected the kind of event which is has been further described as un- to be termed an 'accident.' looked for or untoward event not defining our event designed. It is not sufficient merely courts have utilized two theories: show that a claimant worked injuries. compensation for These tort of his during period employer for the unsatisfactory to deemed doctrines were disability arose." in which his life age in this industrial protect worker v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. difficulty proving a claim. because of (1978) 269 Ind. Thus, and his suffered the worker Ellis, Ind.App. at 1244. Cf. earnings when his were privation want and language n. 3. From the N.E.2d at 210