Also known as: accidentally
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An occurrence or result that takes place without intention or expectation on the part of the actor.
Bernard Bailey faced an aggressor who threatened him with a knife. Bailey swung a stick intending only to knock the weapon away. The blow unexpectedly fractured the aggressor's skull. Because Bailey neither intended nor realized the likelihood of serious harm, the court treated the outcome as immaterial to the privilege analysis.
Brian Bailey worked as a warehouse loader for Blackwood Technologies. While stacking crates, a sudden equipment failure caused a pallet to fall and strike him fatally. His widow sought death benefits under the statute covering injury or death by accident arising out of employment.
On February 11, 1977, Ruth Wengler, wife of appellant Paul J. Wengler, died in a work-related accident in the parking lot of her employer, appellee Dicus Prescription Drugs, Inc. Her husband, appellant Paul J. Wengler, filed a claim for death benefits under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.240 (Supp. 1979). Under the statute a widower is not entitled to death benefits unless he either is mentally or physically incapacitated from wage earning or proves actual dependence on his wife’s earnings. In contrast, a widow qualifies for death benefits without having to prove actual dependence on her husband’s earnings. Wengler stipulated that he was neither incapacitated nor dependent on his wife’s earnings. He argued that the statute’s disparate treatment of similarly situated widows and widowers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The claim was administratively denied. The Circuit Court of Madison County reversed, holding that § 287.240 violated the Equal Protection Clause because the statutory restriction on a widower’s recovery of death benefits did not also apply to a surviving wife. Dicus and its insurer, appellee Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., were ordered to pay death benefits to appellant in the appropriate amount. The Missouri Supreme Court, distinguishing cases in this Court, reversed the Circuit Court’s decision. The equal protection challenge to § 287.240 failed because the substantive difference in the economic standing of working men and women justifies the advantage that the statute administratively gives to a widow. Because the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri arguably conflicted with precedents, the Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed.
View caseThe phrase requires that the injury or death occur without the employee's intention or expectation. It emphasizes the unexpected nature of the event rather than any deliberate act by the worker.
No. The term focuses on the lack of intent, not on whether the employee could have avoided the risk. Coverage remains available even if the employee was negligent or failed to anticipate the harm.
The Restatement provides that harm neither intended nor likely to occur does not defeat the privilege even if serious injury results. The actor's intent and reasonable expectations control the analysis.
…in a holistic system, to a personalized assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that every applicant might have received by accident of birth plus all that has happened to them since. It ensures a full accounting of everything that bears on the individual’s resilience and likelihood of enhancing the UNC campus. It also…