Herrera v. Sperry Corp.

734 P.2d 912, 53 Utah Adv. Rep. 7, 1987 Utah LEXIS 665
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 17, 1987
DocketNo. 860062
StatusPublished

This text of 734 P.2d 912 (Herrera v. Sperry Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herrera v. Sperry Corp., 734 P.2d 912, 53 Utah Adv. Rep. 7, 1987 Utah LEXIS 665 (Utah 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

This case is an appeal from an Industrial Commission ruling that an injury suffered by G. Carmen Herrera was not a compensa-ble accident. We reverse.

Herrera was performing one of her normal daily tasks of lifting a computer from floor level up to a conveyor belt when she felt a snap and a tingling pain in her lower back. As a result of this injury, Herrera was unable to work for several months. [913]*913She applied for compensation under section 36-1-45 of the Code, U.C.A., 1953, § 35-1-45 (1974 ed., Supp.1986), which states: “Every employee ... who is injured ... by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment ... shall be paid ... compensation. ...”

The Industrial Commission of Utah ruled that the injury was not an “accident” because Herrera suffered her injury while performing her usual daily tasks in the usual manner. Herrera appeals the decision of the Industrial Commission. She contends that unexpected injuries incurred while performing one’s usual duties are compensable “accidents” if there is a causal connection between the injury and the worker’s employment duties.

After this appeal was argued, we decided Allen v. Industrial Commission, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986). There, we held that “an accident is an unexpected or unintended occurrence that may be either the cause or the result of an injury.” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original). Under this definition, Herrera’s injury was an “accident.” Whether she is entitled to compensation depends on her satisfying the other elements set out in Allen. We reverse and remand for further consideration in light of Allen.

HALL, C.J., STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Allen v. Industrial Commission
729 P.2d 15 (Utah Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
734 P.2d 912, 53 Utah Adv. Rep. 7, 1987 Utah LEXIS 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-sperry-corp-utah-1987.