THE CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA AND THE SUN INDEMNITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK
v.
SALLIE BURTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed an award to the widow of a worker who died from an overdose of narcotic pain medication prescribed for a work-related injury. The court held that the narcotic overdose was not an independent intervening cause but a direct result of the original injury, making the employer and insurance carrier liable.
The court held that the narcotic overdose was not an independent intervening cause but a direct result of the original work injury, and therefore the employer and insurance carrier are liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The rule applies specifically to claims under Workmen's Compensation Statutes and not to negligence suits.
“So, it is clear that there was direct causal connection between the injury and the death, even if death followed as the immediate result of taking the narcotic. It, therefore, follows that the taking of the narcotic was not an independent intervening cause but was the result of the original injury, and the employer and insurance carrier are liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
Establishes the core holding that the overdose is not an independent intervening cause and that liability exists under workers' compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe deceased worker was injured in a workplace accident on December 6, 1939, sustaining abdominal injuries that caused intense pain. A physician furni…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Intervening Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
On appeal we review order of Circuit Court affirming award in favor of appellee by the Florida Industrial Commission.
Appellee’s decedent was injured by an accident which occurred on December 6, 1939, in the course of, and arose out .of, his employment. Deceased was disabled by the injury and continued to suffer intense pain therefrom until he died sometime between 9:30 P. M. December 20th, and 7:00 o’clock A. M. December 21, 1939, at which time he was found dead in his bed.
The record shows that death may have been caused by the taking of an over-dose of a narcotic, the narcotic, but not the size or frequency of the dose, having been prescribed by the physician, furnished by the employer, to alleviate the pain caused by the injury.
There is no contention that deceased committed suicide.
The contention is that death was caused by the negligence of the deceased or by the negligence of the physician in connection with the over-dose of narcotic.
The record is clear that the injury caused the injured man to suffer great pain in the abdominal region and the suffering of such pain by the deceased caused the physician to prescribe, and the deceased to take, the narcotic. So, it is clear that there was direct causal connection between the injury and the death, even if death followed as the immediate result of taking the narcotic. It, therefore, follows that the taking of the narcotic was not an independent intervening cause but was the result of the original injury, and the employer and insurance carrier are liable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. See Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. Ltd., v. Industrial Accident *414Com., 181 Cal. 500, 185 Pac. 179, 7 A. L. R. 1180 (see annotations following in 7 A. L. R.) ; annotation 39 A. L. R. 1276, et seq.; Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N. E. 209, 54 A. L. R. 634, and annotations 127 A. L. R. 1110, et seq.
Let it be understood that the rule as above stated is one which applies to claims arising under what we know as Workmen’s Compensation Statutes and not to suits for damages caused by negligence of another.
But, aside from this, we are not convinced from the record that death was not the direct result of the injury without being superinduced by the taking of the narcotic. There is ample evidence to cause reasonable men to reach the conclusion that deceased received more serious internal injuries than had been identified and that, in all probability, death was the direct result of the injuries.
The burden rests on the employer and insurance carrier to show clearly that the circuit court has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. This burden has not been discharged.
The order is affirmed.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — There is no question here as to the injury having been received in the course of the employment and that it arose out of the employment. Both elements were proven. On the finding of facts made by the commission, it appears that there was a causal connection between the injury and the death of the injured man. It cannot be held that his death was caused solely by his own negligence in taking, or that of the doctor in prescribing, the narcotic.
Brown, C. J.
(concurring). — There is no question here as to the injury having been received in the course of the employment and that it arose out of the employment. Both elements were proven. On the finding of facts made by the commission, it appears that there was a causal connection between the injury and the death of the injured man. It cannot be held that his death was caused solely by his own negligence in taking, or that of the doctor in prescribing, the narcotic.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)…rived at an erroneous conclusion *748 not warranted by the record. Firestone Auto Supply & Service Stores v. Bullard, supra; Dixie Laundry et al. v. Wentzell, supra; City of St. Petersburg et al. v. Mosedale, supra." See City of Lakeland v. Burton, 147 Fla. 412, 2 So. 2d 731; Forehand v. Manly, 147 Fla. 287, 2 So. 2d 864; City of St. Petersburg v. Mosedale, 146 Fla. 784, 1 So. 2d 878; Moorer v. Putnam Lbr. Co., 152 Fla. 520, 12 So. 2d 370. The record reflects that the Circuit Judge simply reviewed on appe…
-
Davis v. Artley Constr. Co., 154 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1944)
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson, 4 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1941)…Contracting Co. v. Massey,145 Fla. 56, 198 So. 802; Dixie Laundry v. Wentzell, 145 Fla. 569,200 So. 860; Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348; City of St. Petersburg v. Mosedale, 146 Fla. 784, *Page 329 1 So.2d 878; City of Lakeland v. Burton, 147 Fla. 412,2 So.2d 731; Cohen v. Sloan, 138 Fla. 752, 190 So. 14; Fidelity Casualty Co. v., Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495; Southern States Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 146 Fla. 29, 200 So. 375; Sims Tire Service v. Parker, 146 Fla. 23, 200 So. 524. I agree to the c…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence