(specially concurring).
I concur in the result but not all that is said in the majority opinion. ....
The majority opinion deals at length with the cause of the aneurysm which, in my view, has nothing whatever to do with the result in- .this case. Whatever the cause of the aneurysm may be, if it ruptured by reason of “a tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an unexpected cause” connected with employment it is a compensable injury (section 92-418, R.C.M.1947, as amended- by Ch. 162, Laws of 1961); conversely if the rupture was not so caused, the injury is not compensable.
In the instant case there is no “unexpected cause” of the tangible happening of a .traumatic nature. An unexpected result of the employee’s ordinary activities in performing his employment is insufficient under the 1961 amendment defining injury for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion in Lupien v. Montana Record Publishing Co., 143 Mont. 415, 390 P.2d 455, (Also see James v, V.K.V. Lumber Co., 145 Mont. 466, 401 P.2d 282.)
In my opinion, the foregoing is the specific and correct, basis for the result reached by the majority.