Haynes v. R.B. Rice, Division of Sara Lee

783 S.W.2d 403 (1989)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Haynes v. R.B. Rice, Division of Sara Lee

Missouri Court of Appeals
783 S.W.2d 403 (1989)

Facts

Craig F. Haynes (plaintiff) was employed by R. B. Rice, Division of Sara Lee (defendant). On April 19, 1986, Haynes was injured at work. Haynes was addicted to cocaine, and in the weeks surrounding his workplace injury, Haynes overdosed twice. On the night before his injury, Haynes injected one and one-half grams of cocaine and drank four to six beers. Haynes did not eat dinner or breakfast and did not sleep that night. On the morning of his injury, Haynes was driven to work by a friend. One of Haynes’s coworkers, James Jamison, had to carry Haynes back to the car because Haynes kept falling down and was unable to walk. Jamison testified that Haynes appeared to be out of his mind. Haynes eventually made it into work. Haynes was responsible for cleaning metal chili tubs with very hot water, which he did alone in the chili room. About an hour and a half to two hours into Haynes’s workday, Haynes was found lying unconscious on the floor with scalding water spraying onto his body. None of the chili tubs had been rinsed out. No one witnessed Haynes’s fall. Haynes, who suffered severe burns to several parts of his body, filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits. At his hearing, Haynes testified that he did not remember what had happened. Dr. Oxley, a board-certified pathologist, testified that the amount of cocaine found in Haynes’s blood after the accident would have made it impossible for Haynes to perform his work duties. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the commission) denied Haynes’s claim, finding that the fall was not work related. The commission determined that the fall was idiopathic and related to Haynes’s cocaine use. Haynes appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gaitan, J.)

Dissent (Kennedy, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 834,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership