 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SEAMANS v. MAACO AUTO PAINTING5/23/1996
. that the injury or death was not occasioned by the employee's . . . wilful intention to injure himself. . . . ." This presumption provides insight into the appropriate construction of the legislature's intention concerning burden of proof in these circumstances. If the legislature had not intended that the burden is on the claimant to prove that an accident caused the personal injury for which compensation is
sought, why would the claimant need a presumption to negate intentional injury ? Stated otherwise, if the burden were on the employer to prove intentional injury, no presumption would be necessary to support compensation if the employer did not prove intentional injury by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court's opinion deprives the presumption contained in I.C. ยง 72-228 of any meaning.
JOHNSON, Justice, dissenting.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|