holding that a unexpected work-related injury not produced by unusual or abnormal strain is an “accident”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a unexpected work-related injury not produced by unusual or abnormal strain is an “accident”
- The employee, a truck driver and warehouseman, was injured while delivering a refrigerator as a normal and usual part of his duties. While assisting another person in lifting the refrigerator up a stairwell, the weight of the refrigerator came back against the employee and he felt a sharp back pain. Rejecting its previous requirement that an unusual circumstance be present as a predicate for compensation, the court stated: “The [former] Missouri rule is in contrast with the overwhelming majority of states which hold that a strain is compensable even though the work being performed at the time of the injury was routine and the strain was not usual or abnormal
- construing the term “accident” broadly
- "Any doubt as to the right of an employee to compensation should be resolved in favor of the injured employee."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLIVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The time is totally inappropriate for this Court to construe accidental injury, see § 287.020(2), RSMo 1978, to mean any “job related” injury. Such an expansion of coverage by judicial fiat can only raise already oppressive insurance premiums and, as a result, increase the cost of doing business in this state.
The continuing expenditures of time and resources made by the legislative and executive branches to attract jobs and business to the state reflect the degree of Missouri’s involvement in the “war among the states for jobs and business.” See Schellhardt, War Among the States For Jobs and Business Becomes Ever Fiercer, Wall St.J., Feb. 14, 1983, at 1, col. 6. Today’s decision only frustrates the attempt to stimulate growth and improve the economic condition of the state.
Courts can no longer ignore economic reality. The present economic conditions mandate judicial economic responsibility. See Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 774 (Mo. bane 1983) (Welliver, J., dissenting), decided today.