CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION (1938)

Respondent Crawford filed an application with the Industrial Accident Commission wherein he sought to recover from petitioner, the insurance carrier for his employer, the reasonable value of his eyeglasses which were damaged in an industrial accident. The commission filed its findings in favor of Crawford, awarding him the cost of replacing the lenses of his eye-glasses. The insurance carrier seeks the annulment of this award.

The sole question presented to us for consideration is whether or not eye-glasses are artificial members within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 3208 of the Labor Code, St.1937, p. 266 (formerly sec. 3(4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, St.1919, p. 911), provides: “ ‘Injury’ includes any injury or disease arising out of the employment, including injuries to artificial members.” (Italics ours.)

It becomes necessary for us to determine what the legislature meant when it used the term “artificial members” in that section. “Member” is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary as being: “A part or organ of the animal body; especially a limb or other separable part.” The word “artificial” is defined by Webster's New International Dictionary as being in opposition to the word “natural”. An artificial member must be held to be a substitute for a natural part, organ, limb or other separable part of the body. We believe this conclusion to be fully in accord with the decision of our Supreme Court in the only case in this jurisdiction which has been brought to our attention, involving an interpretation of this section of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com., 215 Cal. 461, at page 465, 11 P.2d 1, at page 3, 82 A.L.R. 1170, the court, in holding that an award may be made for an artificial leg, states: “Fear is expressed by petitioner that the award is the forerunner of others for injuries to clothes, tools, automobiles, or other personal property. We anticipate no such result. The Constitution, in our opinion, authorizes compensation for injury to the body of the workman, including every part thereof, natural or artificial, which is essential to its proper functioning. Other things, such as clothes and tools, may be necessary if he is to perform his duties, but their destruction does not cause him a physical injury or disability. His body may function without them.”

The ultimate test to be applied to any given case in order to determine whether it comes within the provisions of the above section is: Was the thing injured a substitute for, or a mere aid to some natural part of the body? Eye-glasses are in no sense a substitute or replacement for a natural part of the body; they are merely aids to the eyesight. The eyes, which are the organs of sight, however defective they may be, are still a natural part of the human body.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that an injury to eye-glasses is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as being an injury to an artificial member of the body. The award of the Industrial Accident Commission is annulled.

WOOD, Justice.

We concur: CRAIL, P.J.; McCOMB, J.