TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ROEGAINS FRUIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
v.
NADEEN SHEPARD AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Fla. | 1945-02-20
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
155 Fla. 576 Florida Supreme Court (1945)
Also reported at: 20 So. 2d 903

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision, holding that a citrus packer's dermatitis, caused by prolonged contact with orange oil, did not constitute an "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court emphasized that the injury must result from an unexpected or unusual event, not just the unexpected occurrence of the injury itself.


Holding

No, dermatitis resulting from prolonged exposure to orange oil does not qualify as an "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act because it does not stem from an unexpected or unusual event.


Key Quotes

“It is not amiss to point out, however, that an accident is not shown by the unexpected occurrence of an injury. The injury must necessarily follow the unexpected or unusual event in order for the case to come under the statute, Sec. 440.02, F.S. '41, F.S.A. paragraph 19.”

This quote explains the court's interpretation of the statutory definition of "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, distinguishing between the occurrence of an injury and the event causing it.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

An employee, a citrus packer, developed dermatitis on her arms and body after packing fruit with her bare hands for several weeks. A doctor diagnosed …

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.


Opinion of the Court
ADAMS, J.:

ADAMS, J.:

Appellee was employed as a citrus packer. She had been packing fruit with her bare hands for several weeks when a rash appeared on her arms which, within a period of several days, spread to other parts of her body caúsing discomfort and making it necessary for her to stop work. She went to a-doctor who diagnosed the ailment as dermatitis caused by oil from oranges. •

*577She filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claim was rejected by the Industrial Commission because she did not suffer an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. On appeal to the circuit court this order, was- reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is before us and presents the single question of whether the injury occurred by an accident as defined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We can rest the decision of this case on our opinion, S. H. Kress & Company v. Burkes, 153 Fla. 686, 16 So. (2nd) 106.

It is not amiss to point out, however, that an accident is not shown by the unexpected occurrence of an injury. The injury must necessarily follow the unexpected or unusual event in order for the case to come under the statute, Sec. 440.02, F.S. ’41, F.S.A. paragraph 19.

The judgment is reversed upon authority of Kress v. Burkes, supra.

Reversed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw