Claim of Rist v. Larkin & Sangster
Before State Industrial Commission, In the Matter of the Claim of George C. Rist, for Compensation to Himself under the Workmen's Compensation Law v. Larkin & Sangster, Employers, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Insurance Carrier
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Kellogg, P. J.:
The Commission has found that the claimant, September 3, 1914, was working for his employer on the Mohawk river operating a crane; one of the timbers of the crane broke, and to save himself from being hurt he jumped into the river, a distance of some ten feet. The water came up to his knees. He waded to the shore, contracted a heavy cold and pleurisy, which developed into pulmonary tuberculosis, by reason of which he was disabled from the date of the accident until February 25, 1915, and since that date.
*72 The finding of the Commission that claimant’s present condition is the result of the accidental breaking of the timber, and that his going into the river resulted therefrom, is not unreasonable, and has some evidence to sustain it. We cannot question it. While the claimant jumped into the water, he did so to prevent a personal injury resulting from the accidental breaking of the timber. The jumping into the river was, therefore, not a voluntary act, but was the result of the accident, which put the claimant in such peril that his getting wet must be considered accidental rather than voluntary.
Subdivision 7 of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law defines “injury’’and “ personal injury ” to mean “only accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and such disease or infection as may naturally and unavoidably result therefrom.” We consider the claimant in the same position as if the accident had thrown him into the river, and clearly his being accidentally thrown ten feet into the water was an injury within the meaning of the act, and the disease following has been found to naturally and unavoidably result from that injury. He at the time apparently was not physically disabled by jumping into the water, and it was not then quite clear what injury he had sustained; but it has developed that the injury was very serious. The award should, therefore, be affirmed.
Award unanimously affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.