Inhalation of noxious gases 13. Inhalation of noxious gases.1 Involuntary inhalation of gas has been held to be an accidental injury within the meaning of a policy insuring an individual against accidental injury. Paul v. Travelers Ins. Co., 112 N. Y. 472; Pickett v. Pacific Mut. Life Insurance Co., 144 Pa. St. 79; Pollock v. United States Insurance Co., 102 Pa. St. 230; United States, etc., Association v. Newman, 84 Va. 52; Sinclair v. Maritime Passengers Ins. Co., 3 Ellis & Ellis, 476. Optic neuritis caused by noxious gases and resulting in total loss of vision was held to be a personal injury entitling the employé to compensation for total permanent disability and specific indemnity for loss of eyes. Hurle v. Am. Mut. Lia. Ins. Co. (Mch., 1914) 000 Mass. 000; 000 N. E. Rep. 000. A miner employed in a mine died from pneumonia caused by the inhalation of gas generated by an explosion. It was held that the death was the result of the accident within the meaning of the Act. Kelly v. Auchenlea Coal Co. (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 768; 4 B. W. C. C. 417. A workman contracted the disease of enteritis from inhaling sewer gas in the course of his employment. The result was to accelerate long standing heart disease, and to incapacitate the man from work before the time at which such heart disease would otherwise have incapacitated him. It was held that this was not a personal injury by accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act. Broderick v. London County Council (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 219. A caretaker of an empty house was told to lay open the drains, manholes and cesspools for inspection. He did this on several occasions in July, and becoming ill, died in the following October, from poisoning contracted from the drains. The County Court judge found that it was not possible to specify the date when he contracted the disease. It was held that the workman had not died from a personal See also cases cited ante, pages 343 et seq. Pneumonia following exposure or traumatism injury by accident within the meaning of the Act; that a disease, although arising out of and in the course of the employment is not a personal injury by accident, if it cannot be shown to have been contracted at a particular time and place. Eke v. Sir William Hart Dyke (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 482. A gas fitter inhaled some coal gas, and three days later suffered from paralysis due to cerebral hemorrhage, from which he died shortly after. Seven months previously he had had a transient attack of paralysis from the same cause. On his death his widow contended that the death was due to the gas poisoning, but the County Court judge decided against her. On appeal it was held that it was a question of fact for the County Court judge to decide. Dean v. London & North Western Railway Co. (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 351. 14. Pneumonia following exposure or traumatism. An employé got his feet wet in a leaky boat, which was furnished by his employer, and pneumonia developed as an after-effect, and it was held that this was a personal injury under the Massachusetts Act. Stone v. Travelers Insurance Company, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. A widow of an employé whose death was caused by lobar pneumonia, due to cold and exposure, was held to be entitled to compensation as this was an injury within the Massachusetts Act. Milliken v. Travelers Insurance Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. (Appeal pending to Supreme Judicial Court). A healthy and steady workman was employed to pick up cotton waste on the decks of a ship in dock. He went to work at one o'clock and at three P. M. climbed up the ladder of the hold, apparently in great pain, and he was sent home. He received medical attention and marks were found on his ribs. Three days later he developed pneumonia from which he died. The doctor who attended him attributed Pneumonia following exposure or traumatism the pneumonia to the injury to his sides. It was held that there was evidence that the workman had died from personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Lovelady and Others v. Berrie (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 62. The dependents of a workman who died of pneumonia contended that the pneumonia resulted from lowered vitality caused by an accident. The only evidence that there had been an accident consisted of several inconsistent statements made by the workman, to various persons, on the day after the alleged accident, which were admitted without objection being taken. The medical referee gave a report that the pneumonia could not have been caused by the alleged accident. The County Court judge held that he was not bound to surrender his judgment to the medical referee, and held that there had been an accident causing the pneumonia, and so he awarded compensation. It was held on appeal that there was no evidence that there had been an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Langley v. Reeve (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 175. Under the Compensation Act relating to certain Federal employés it has been held that an employé who contracted pneumonia from becoming overheated, while removing ashes from a heating plant, was not entitled to compensation, as this was not an injury within the meaning of the statute. Re John Sheeran, 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 254; s. c. Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L. p. 169. The Federal Law is worded very much like the Massachusetts Act in relation to the "injuries" for which compensation is awarded. Where no causal connection between a chill which an employé received and the pneumonia from which he died was proved by the claimant for compensation, it was held that this was not an injury for which compensation could be awarded. Waiswell v. General Accident Assurance Corporation, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. Lead poisoning 15. Lead poisoning.1 Lead poisoning is not an accident. Steel v. Cammell, Laird & Co. (1905), 7 W. C. C. 9. Nor is an attack of colic through lead poisoning. Williams v. Duncan (1898), 1 W. C. C. 123. Acute lead poisoning is not such an injury as entitles an employé to compensation under the Federal Act. Re C. L. Schroeder, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L. p. 172. Lead poisoning which caused the loss of weight and other symptoms culminating in a condition of secondary anemia, which brought about inability to work, was held to be a personal injury within the meaning of the Massachusetts Workmen's Compensation Act. Johnson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. (Appeal pending to Supreme Judicial Court.) Lead poisoning is an injury which entitles the workmen to compensation under the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act. Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color Works, Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd., Nov. 3, 1913; The Indicator, Nov. 5, 1913, page 443. In the last-mentioned case the Board said: "It seems to me established under the English cases that lead poisoning is not an accident, but is an occupational disease. It seems to follow from this that unless the Michigan Workmen's Compensation law is broad enough to include and cover occupational diseases the applicant's claim in this case must be denied. The controlling provision of the act on this point is found in Section one of Part two, and is as follows: 'If an employé *** receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, he shall be entitled to compensation,' etc. It will be noted that the above language does not limit the right of compensation to such persons as receive personal injuries 'by accident'. The language in this respect is broader than the English act, and clearly includes all personal injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment, whether the same are 1 See next succeeding paragraph. Copper poisoning caused by accident' or otherwise. It is equally plain that lead poisoning in this case in fact constitutes a personal injury, and that such personal injury was of a serious and deadly character. The Board is therefore of the opinion that the section of the Michigan Act above quoted is broad enough to cover cases of lead poisoning such as the one in question." It was contended in the last-mentioned case that the title of the Michigan Act provided for compensation for personal injuries when they were received "by accident" and that in so far as the body of the act was broader than the title it was unconstitutional. The Board further held that this point was not well taken and awarded compensation. Under a claim for compensation by a widow, on the ground that the death of her husband had been caused by lead poisoning, the evidence showed that the paint furnished by the employers contained only a small quantity of lead, and that only in the form of lead sulphate, which does not cause plumbism, or lead poisoning. It was held that the widow was not entitled to compensation. Baiona v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. Where an applicant for compensation contended that the death of the workman had been caused by lead poisoning, or its consequences, and it appeared in this particular case that the immediate cause was granular kidney, which might have been brought about by gout, alcoholism, heartpressure, or other complaints it was held that the claimant had not maintained the onus of proving that the death was caused by lead poisoning. Haylett v. Vigor & Co. (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 282. This case arose under the amendment to the British Act allowing compensation for certain industrial diseases, including lead poisoning. 16. Copper poisoning. Copper poisoning, due to coming in contact with the copper filing and inhaling of the dust from the same by a workman engaged in grinding and polishing of brass prod |