Eaton v. Proctor

The defendants’ position is that there can be no compensation because there was no accident. Conceding that there was a sudden manifestation of disease, sufficient within the rule laid down in Guay v. Company, 83 N. H. 392, it is said that the conclusion there reached is erroneous, because the English authorities therein relied upon do not express the true state of the English law in two respects.

It is said first that the interpretation of the term accident in its popular sense, as stated in Boody v. Company, 77 N. H. 208, where the English authority, Fenton v. Thorley, [1903] A. C. 443, is…