Welke v. City of Ainsworth
Nebraska Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I do not agree with that part of the majority opinion which holds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a recovery of benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It has been the rule in this jurisdiction that the Workmen’s Compensation Act will be liberally construed to accomplish its beneficent purposes but the evidence must show by a preponderance that the accident caused the injury.
The evidence supports a finding that claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on October 10, 1962. It will likewise sustain a finding that claimant first…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bartlett v. EatonNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Saxton v. Sinclair Refining Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- Price v. Burlington Refrigerator Express Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1936
- Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Snowardt v. City of KimballNebraska Supreme Court · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.