Alexander v. Davol Rubber Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Alexander v. Davol Rubber Co.

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 14

Superior Court of Rhode Island·Decided November 27, 1917·No. Pet. No. 167·Published

Opinion

TANNER, P. J.

We are of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proven that he was injured through an accident. We think it more reasonable that his trouble was the result of occupation disease. We think the neuritis from which he suffers is the result of the continuous pressure required in the occupation he was following rather than of any sudden twisting which he- describes.

The petition must therefore be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TANNER, P. J.

We are of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proven that he was injured through an accident. We think it more reasonable that his trouble was the result of occupation disease. We think the neuritis from which he suffers is the result of the continuous pressure required in the occupation he was following rather than of any sudden twisting which he- describes.

The petition must therefore be denied.

Alexander v. Davol Rubber Co., 1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 14 (R.I. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 14 (Alexander v. Davol Rubber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.