the Act shall be liberally construed to provide protection for both employers and employees
How later courts described this case
- the Act shall be liberally construed to provide protection for both employers and employees
- employer assumes risk that job requirement may aggravate employee’s pre-existing disease or condition
- “With reference to [the workers’ compensation] statute a liberal construction must be given, to effectuate the humane purposes for which it was enacted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Merritt v. Continental Casualty Insurance, 65 Ga. App. 826 (1941)
377 (9 S. E. 2d, 84), cited and relied on by the plaintiff in error is distinguishable on its facts.
The opinion
Reid, Chief Justice,
dissenting. The injury to be compensable must arise “by accident.” It is conceded that the “accident” is not required to be one from the exercise of some external force or outward violence. It is conceded also that the fact that the injured person may have been suffering before the “accident” does not bar compensation, provided the illness or disease may have been precipitated or brought into play by the “accident.” But it is the
cause
of the injury which must be accidental. No such
accident
as contemplated by the Georgia statutes is seen from a study of this record. If a person suffering from arteriosclerosis works harder
*290
one day than he does another day at his usual work, and then after such exertion the disease disables him, that mere fact is not enough to show
accident
within the meaning of the statute. Although the majority view is presented in a most able opinion, it seems to me that the provision of the statute that the injury must be one arising
"by accident”
is disregarded, and that under the rulings made the words
"by accident ”
appearing in the statute, are left without meaning or function.