Document orV2j5kGOD9eeQkVJg4aeMwg

Industrial Hygiene Digest - 6 _August. Iolq 15 I Legal Developments i 8^*3 Accidental Injury--Arsenic Poisoning--Contact With Corroded Copper Wires.. Death Cause Speculative. ----- - Decedent, whose -work la defendant's nines brought him In contact vlth corroded copper vlre containing a trace of arsenic, died of arsenic poison ing . Medical experts denied that the amount of arsenic In the vlre could ------- have caused the fatal poisoning; another employee -oho had shared decedent's coffee had also becone violently 111 on the sene day. A holding that there vaa an accidental Injury arising out of and In the course at employ ment would have been purely speculative, and Judgment of denying compen sation vas affirmed. Bad decedent died as a result of a combination of other circumstances. Including the presence of sulphuric acid In the mine, relied on together vlth the arsenic reported, the only reasonable conclu sion could have been that of occupational disease, not accident. Smith v. Fentress Coal and Coke Co. Tennessee Supreme Court. July 9, 19^9 --CCB 8* 01*'. 81*1* Lead Poleonlng--Aggravatlon of 1\iberculoslB--Compenaehlllty of Disease Contributing to, hut Wot Sole Cause of, beath--Flve-Year Exposure Proof. There vaa evidence to support the finding that deceased had contract ed lead poisoning in the course of hie employment vlth a manufacturer of lead plates for batteries, and that the occupational disease aggravated the tuberculosis which caused his death, nothing In the Act prevented the avard of compensation for occupational disease which vas not the sole cause of death so long as causal relation, of vhatever character, existed. The evidence also supported the finding that deceased, while acting as a helper or as a plater or tank man, vas exposed to a lead hazard In hie employment for more than five years, and the award to be paid Jointly by the employer and the Commonwealth vas affirmed. Rohner v. Fox Producta. Pennsylvania Superior Court.. Hoe. 127 and 129, October Term, 1940. July 15, .191*9,--CCH l' S * V l I l 81*5 Blllcoste--Negllgence Act ion- -Employer1 s Lack of Knowledge of Silicosis Hazard--Equipment Standards. Plaintiff, who had contracted sllleoala after seventeen years' ex 5j 8U posure to dust from sanding equipment In defendant's mines, failed to show negligence on the part of defendant, for there was no shoving that defendant knew, or had reason to know, that the dust constituted a silicosis hazard, or that there vas any known method of combating the sill, coals hazard; defendant's equipment equalled that In general use. Neither vas there evidence that the defendant vas negligent In permitting plain tiff to vork In the mines for six months after diagnosis of his condition. Kleth v. Cllnchfleld Coal Corp. Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. June 22, I9IJ9I --CCH <\ \