Williams Construction Co. v. Garrison
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
400 A.2d 22 (1979)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Williams Construction Company (Williams) (defendant) employed Jesse R. Garrison, Jr. (plaintiff) as a bulldozer operator. On July 25, 1974, Garrison suffered injuries in a workplace accident. Garrison applied for and received workers’-compensation benefits including medical expenses and temporary-total-disability benefits. Garrison did not file a claim for permanent-partial-disability benefits. Garrison began experiencing dizzy spells after the accident, but Garrison’s doctor and Williams allowed Garrison to return to work without restrictions. Garrison worked for Williams for another four months before Williams laid him off in early December of 1974. Garrison subsequently began working for himself as a tree trimmer, which involved climbing tasks similar to what Garrison had performed at Williams. On December 28, 1974, Garrison was trimming a tree when he fell off a 40-foot ladder while holding a chainsaw. Garrison was severely injured in the fall. In 1976, Garrison sought to reopen his previous workers’-compensation claim. Garrison alleged that he fell from the ladder due to a dizzy spell, and he asserted that his injuries from his fall were therefore caused by a disability from his July accident. Williams was unable to contradict Garrison’s claim that the dizzy spell that caused his fall was related to the dizzy spells resulting from the July accident. However, Williams asserted that Garrison had acted recklessly and unreasonably by climbing a 40-foot ladder while experiencing dizzy spells and that this reckless and unreasonable conduct broke any causal relationship between the July accident and the fall. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded benefits after finding that Garrison was permanently totally disabled as a result of the fall and that the fall was attributable to Garrison’s disability from the July accident. A trial court affirmed the commission’s award, and Williams appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liss, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 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.