Kane, id. at 5. The term ‘accident’ is not a characterization of the method of injury, but the result thereof.” 590 So.2d at 286-87 (first emphasis added). Thus, although a normal occupational stimulus that causes an injury may not be “accidental” in a colloquial sense, an unusual physical reaction to that stimulus may nonetheless satisfy the statutory requirement of an unexpected and unforeseen event. As this court held in City of Tuscaloosa v. Howard, 55 Ala.App. 701, 318 So.2d 729 (Ala.Civ.App.1975), it is not necessary that an injured employee prove “some unusual strain or exertion not ordinary to the job.” 55 Ala.App. at 705, 318 So.2d at 732. See Consolidated Coal Co. v. Dill, 248 Ala. 5, 26 So.2d 88 (1946); Pow v. Southern Construction Co., 235 Ala. 580, 180 So. 288 (1938) (<HOLDING>). In a case similar in many respects to the
holding that injuries suffered by laborers are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries