# Brown Shoe Company v. Reed

> Tennessee Supreme Court · July 26, 1961 · 209 Tenn. 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668670

## Case

- **Full name:** Brown Shoe Company v. John H. Reed
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 26, 1961
- **Citations:** 209 Tenn. 106; 13 McCanless 106; 350 S.W.2d 65; 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 353
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Burnett
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668670

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the appropriate inquiry is to “see whether or not under the factual situation herein if this injury was an accident as is used in the Workmen’s Compensation Law”

## Opinion text

Petition to Rehear
The plaintiff in error, through able counsel, has filed a sincere petition to rehear in this case. The argument on this petition was the basic argument made in the original briefs and argument before this Court.
After again reviewing the matter we are satisfied that the questions raised on the petition to rehear were the identical questions presented and answered in our original opinion. The petition does not bring forward any *121 new question of law or fact. The facts quoted in the petition to rehear from the record were the same as those carefully considered by us in the first instance and from which we found there was material evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. This being true there is nothing that we can do about the matter.
In the petition to rehear counsel takes the position that the case of Meade-Fiber Corporation v. Starnes, 147 Tenn. 362 , 247 S.W. 989 , is in point in support of their petition to rehear, and it is a distinguishing case from that of Shaw v. Musgrave, cited in our original opinion. At the time we prepared the original opinion we considered this question. It is our studied view that the Meade case is not in point here, because the determinative question decided by this Court in the Meade case was that the claimed accident and injury there was a normal incident to the work rather than a fortuitous circumstance. In the present case the injury was not a natural incident to the work but was produced by fortuitous circumstances as pointed out in the original opinion.
After carefully studying the petition to rehear we are satisfied that a correct result under the facts of this case was reached in the original opinion and that nothing has been presented which should change the view as there expressed. Accordingly the petition to rehear is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668670. Public record. Not legal advice.