Houston Packing Co. v. Mason

286 S.W. 862, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 741
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 15, 1926
DocketNo. 1411.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 286 S.W. 862 (Houston Packing Co. v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Houston Packing Co. v. Mason, 286 S.W. 862, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 741 (Tex. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

O’QUINN, J.

Mrs. Artie Mason, surviving widow of J. P. Mason, deceased, in her own hehalf and as next friend for her two minor children, brought this suit in the district court of Harris county, Tex., against the Plouston Packing Company, the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, the Lumbermen’s Reciprocal Association, and the Industrial Accident Board of Texas, to set aside a final ruling and award of said Industrial Accident Board and to recover compensation under the Employers’ Liability Act of Texas (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 8306 et seq.) on account of the death of said J. P. Mason.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment setting aside the award of the Industrial Accident Board and awarding appellees judgment against the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for compensation in a lump sum of $5,711.27, with interest and costs, and awarding to appellees’ attorneys one-third of the recovery as their , fee'in said cause. The case is before us On appeal for review.

The judgment will have to be reversed. While -the award of the Industrial Accident Board is shown by the record, there is nothing in the record to show that appellees ever gave notice to the adverse parties that they were dissatisfied with the award and were not willing to abide same, or that they would file suit to set same aside. The statute> requires that any interested party who is not willing and does not consent to abide by any final ruling and decision of the Industrial Accident Board shall, within 20 days after the rendition of said final ruling and decision, give notice to the adverse party and to the board that he will not abide by said ruling and decision, and shall, within 20 days after giving such notice, file suit in the county where the injury occurred to set aside said final ruling and decision. In order that the court in which the suit is filed to set aside the award of the •board may have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, it is necessary’ that the complaining party both allege and prove the rendition of the award, the notice to the adverse parties that. the party giving the notice is not willing to and will not abide the award, and that suit will be filed to set *863 same aside. The record not reflecting that this was done, the court below was without jurisdiction to hear the case and render the judgment. Counsel for appellees, in their brief, urge that in the trial court appellants admitted these matters and therefore the judgment should be affirmed, but if such admissions were made they should have been incorporated into the record, and, this not being done, the state of - the record must control.

Appellants insist that the cause should be reversed and judgment here rendered for them because it was neither alleged nor proven that deceased sustained any injury in the course of his employment or that his death resulted from an injury so sustained. Plaintiff alleged that deceased, J. P. Mason, contracted what is known as anthrax in the due course of his employment, and that his death resulted from said disease so contracted. It was shown that deceased was employed by the Houston Packing Company, and that his work was skinning cattle. The contention of appellants is that the contracting of said disease and death resulting therefrom does not come within the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. 1925, art. 8S06 et seep), for in that the contracting of such disease is not an accidental injury nor a disease naturally resulting from an injury.

The authorities are not in harmony as to whether death resulting from such disease contracted by an employee in the course of his employment is compensable as for an-injury arising by accident. The great weight of authority, we believe, holds that in such cases compensation should be allowed, and we think that the authorities so holding are sounder in principle and more in consonance with the intent and reason of the law and the liberal interpretation to be given it than those holding to the contrary. In such cases, it is because the employee in the discharge of his duty is brought in contact with the anthrax germ that he contracts the disease, and we think it correct to say that the consequent injury suffered by the employee was accidental and the result of a hazard incident to and in the course of his employment and therefore compensable. That such injuries are compensable is held in: Brin-tons v. Turvey (Eng.) 2 Ann. Oas. 137. In this ease, a workman, while engaged in sorting wool in a factory, was infected with anthrax and died thereof. It was held that his death was attributable to personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Ann. Cas. 1918B, 788, note. In discussing the question, the court said:

“It was an accident that the workman, in dealing with the wool, was brought in contact with that which might infect him with this disease of anthrax, and it was a further accident that the disease attacked him.”

Hood v. Maryland Casualty Co., 206 Mass. 223, 92 N. E. 329, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1192, 138 Am. St. Rep. 379. In this case a hostler contracted glanders from a diseased horse and died of the disease, and it was held that his death was accidental, the court saying:

“It is plain that Barry suffered bodily injury in consequence of becoming infected with glan-ders; as much so as if he had had a leg or an arm broken by a kick from a vicious horse. * * * It was in the nature of an accident that he was set to work upon or cleaning up after horses that had glanders, and it was in the nature of an accident that he became infected with the disease,”

McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co., 261 Pa. 312, 104 A. 617, 17 N. C. C. A. 864. Mc-Cauley was a wool sorter, and while handling wool became infected with anthrax, from which he died. In construing the provisions of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Pa. St. 1920, § 21916 et seq.), the court said;

“It is plain from these provisions that the act before us contemplates injuries by accident only, and, therefore, does not cover what are termed ‘occupational diseases.’ It remains but to show that, in this ease, the entry of the anthrax germ into the body of the deceased, and the disease or infection which naturally re-, suited therefrom, can be held properly to constitute an accident within the meaning of the act. * * * Here, the anthrax germ, a distinguishable entity, came into a'ctual contact with the deceased, thus gaining an entrance-into his body, and his neck began to swell and discolor; therefore the complaint from which McCauley died can be traced to a certain time when there was a sudden or violent change in the condition of the physical structure of his body, just as though a serpent, concealed in the material upon which he was working, had unexpectedly and suddenly bitten him” — citing Hiers v. Hull (Sup.) 164 N. Y. S. 767.

Dove v. Alpena Hide & Leather Co., 198 Mich. 132, 164 N. W. 253. In this case Dove was an employee of the company engaged in unloading a car of hides which had been imported from ¡$outh America. He became “infected” from breathing infected air, caused by infected dust arising from the handling of the hides, and died. It was held by the court, quoting from the syllabus:

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

Related

Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Price
145 S.W.2d 951 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Rhode Island Insurance Co. v. Wurtman
98 S.W.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Rogers
86 S.W.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Hock v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
80 S.W.2d 793 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Cannella v. Gulf Refining Co.
154 So. 406 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Ramsay v. Sullivan Mining Co.
6 P.2d 856 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1931)
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Mitchell
27 S.W.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Sullivan Mining Co. v. Aschenbach
33 F.2d 1 (Ninth Circuit, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 S.W. 862, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-packing-co-v-mason-texapp-1926.