« AnteriorContinuar »
extent of judicial legislation, the words employed a legislative drafting committee to ascertain the must be given their ordinary meaning,” separate correct construction of the language used. * provisions must be construed in the light of the English authorities, while they cannot be constatute as a whole,99 and conflicting provisions recon- sidered on constitutional questions, are of value ciled as far as possible;' but where the language is on questions of construction in cases of similarity plain it must be given its evident effect. Further, between the English act and the statute under the construction given the statute must be con- consideration. sistent. Reference may be had to the report of
VI. EMPLOYMENTS INCLUDED?  The compensation acts vary in their
in their specific occupations deemed hazardous or extra hazscope from an inclusion of all employments with ardous, and specifically enumerated, and they are the ordinary exception of farm laborers, domestic to be construed liberally in this regard,' it being servants, and casual employees, to a limitation to sometimes in terms provided that in proceedings
97. In re Martinelli, 219 Mass. 58, It has long been the law that, where | Super. 385; Labbé v. La Compagnie 106 NE 557; State V. Cass County an act is uncertain or obscure, the Julien, 48 Que. Super. 322; Michaud Dist. Ct., 129 Minn. 156, 151 NW 910; interpretation of that governmental v. Tremblay, 48 Que. Super. 289; De Voe v. New York State R. Cos., department having to do with its Tremblay v. Bail Saint Paul Lumber 169 App. Div. 472, 155 NYS 12; In re administration and enforcement is Co., 46 Que. Super. 203; Duquette v. Sickles, 156 NYS 864, 865.
entitled to great weight. Giving La Compagnie de Pulpe, etc., Co., 12 **The statute should be given a lib- full force to such a rule and recog- Que. Pr. 359; Novico v. E. B. Eddy eral interpretation, but liberality nizing it as we have in our previous Co., 12 Que Pr. 319; Provost v. St. should not be stretched into extrava- decisions, it does not seem to us that, Gabriel Lumber Co., 12 Que. Pr. 285. gance." In re Sickles, supra.
in answering the question submitted [a] Parm laborers not included. “Although the workmen's compen- by this appeal, we find the act so un- -(1) Uphoff v. State Industrial Bd., sation act is to be liberally con- certain or obscure as to make it | 271 Ill. 312, 111 NE 128: In strued, the court cannot go outside proper or necessary to seek adminis- Keaney, 217 'Mass. 5, 7, 104 'NE 438 its language for the purpose of as- trative interpretation in ascertaining (where the court said: "The worksuming a power not granted either its meaning." Wendt Industrial
men's compensation act was not inexpressly or impliedly." In re Mar- Ins. Commn., 80 Wash. 111, 118, 141 tended to confer its advantages upon tinelli, 219 Mass. 58, 60, 106 NE 557. P 311.
farm laborers, or to impose its bur98. Turnquist Hannon, 219 3. McQueeney Sutphen,
dens upon farmers. St. 1911, c. 751, Mass. 560, 107 NE 443; In re Nichols, App. Div. 528, 153 NYS 554; Interna
Part 1, § 2. The legislative policy of 217 Mass. 3, 5, 104 NE 566, AnnCas tional Harvester Co. v. Industrial 1915C 862; Northwestern Iron Co. v. Commn., 157 Wis. 167, `147 NW 53, 1 exempting them from statutory bene
fits and liabilities established in addiIndustrial Commn., 154 Wis. 97, 142 AnnCas1916B 330.
tion to those of the common law, NW 271, LRA1916A 366, AnnCas “This statute does not mean one
disclosed in the employers' liability 1915B 877. thing when it is to the advantage of
act, St. 1909, c. 514, $ 142, has been "The statute not having been de- one employee to so maintain, and at
continued in the workmen's compensigned to promote, but to decrease the same time mean something di
sation act. A farmer employing the opportunity for unnecessary liti- rectly contrary when it is to the
laborers gation, its purpose will be best sub- advantage of some other employee harm in not undertaking to become a
in agriculture suffers no served if plain words are given their to make a different claim." Interna- subscriber under the workmen's comordinary signification." In re Nich- tional Harvester Co. v. Industrial ols, supra.
Parke, Commn., 157 Wis. 167, 170, 147 NW
pensation act"); Shafer v.
(Mich.) 159 NW 304; Smid v. Town"In giving construction to such 53, AnnCas1916B 330. statutes words are to be taken and [a] Self-insurers and insurers in "Any man employed to work on a
send, (Alta.) 8 West Wkly 474. (2) construed in the sense in which they state fund.-"In effect, therefore, the farm, and to perform the work ordi, are understood in common language, law requires that the ordinary indi
consideration taking into
narily done there, is a farm laborer." the text vidual and firm, and perhaps the Shafer v. Parke, (Mich.) 159 NW 304, and subject matter relative to which great mass of employers, must in
305. they are employed." Northwestern sure in the State fund or otherwise.
9. Iron Co. v. Industrial Commn., 154 The law, therefore, should be con
American Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh, Wis. 97, 101, 142 NW 271, LRA1916A strued on the theory that it contem
128 Md. 382, 97 A 999; Tomassi v. 366, AnnCas1915B 877. plates insurance in the State fund,
Christensen; 171 App. Div. 284, 156 "This act ought to be interpreted and employers who insure in the
NYS 905; Gleisner v. Gross, 170 App. according to the obvious sense of its State fund or otherwise, or who are
Div. 37, 155 NYS 946. words and
exceptions self-insurers, should fairly be gov-
defined not to be read into its general provi- erned by the same rule. It is the
(1) 'Cargo' ordinarily means the sions unless required by strong rea- right of the individual employee and
lading or freight of a ship or other Turnquist Hannon, 219 of the employer that they should be
vessel; the goods, merchandise Mass. 560, 563 107 NE 443. treated the same as all other em
whatever is conveyed in a vessel or 99. Sexton v. Newark Dist. Tel. ployees and employers within the
boat." Tomassi v. Christensen, 171 Co., 84 N. J. L. 85, 86 A 451 (afl 85 act.' McQueeney v. Sutphen, 167 | App. Div. 284, 285, 156 NYS 905. (2) N. J. L. 701, 91 A 1070]. App. Div. 528, 532, 153 NYS 554.
not only 1. Kennerson v. Thames Towboat 4. Pellett
refers to the loading and unloading Co., 89 Conn. 367, 94 A 372, LRA Commn., 162 Wis. 596, 156 NW 956.
but to the moving or 1916A 436.
5. Grand Rapids Lumber Co. V.
handling of any part of a cargo upon 2. State v. Cass County Dist. Ct., Blair, (Mich.) 157 NW 29; Ives v.
any dock, platform or place, or in 129 Minn, 156, 151 NW 910; Wendt South Buffalo R. Co., 201 N. Y. 271, any warehouse or other place of v. Industrial Ins. Commn., 80 Wash. 296, 94 NE 431, 34 LRANS 162, Ann
storage." Tomassi Christensen, 111, 141 P 311; Mellen Lumber Co. v.
supra. Cas1912B 156 (where the court said
“ 'Enterprise' Industrial Commn., 154 Wis. 114, 119, of the New York law of 1910 (L. 'an undertaking of hazard; an ardu142 NW 187, LRA1916A 374, AnnCas (1910) C 674]: "There is, of course,
attempt.' (15 Cyc. 1053, and 1915B 997. in this country no direct legal au
cited cases.) Lexicographers define "It is argued that a literal inter- thority upon the subject of the lia- an enterprise as 'an undertaking; pretation of a statute should not be bility sought to be imposed by this something projected and attempted; followed where such interpretation statute, for the theory is not merely an attempt or project, particularly would lead to an absurd consequence. new in our system oť jurisprudence, an undertaking of some importance The statute in question may be in- but plainly antagonistic to its basic or one requiring boldness, energy or equitable, but this does not make it idea. The English authorities are of perseverance; an arduous or hazardabsurd." Mellen Lumber Co. v. In- no assistance to us, because in_the ous attempt, as, warlike enterdustrial Commn., supra.
king's courts the decrees of the Par-prise.'' Uphoff v. State Industrial (a) Construction in favor of con- liament are the supreme law of the Bd., 271 Ill. 312, 317, 111 NE 128 stitutionality.-"Nor may it [the land, although they are interesting (holding that the building of a corn court) interpret the section under in their disclosures of the pater- crib could not be classed as an enterconsideration in a particular way to nalism which logically results from prise). allay a fear that the validity of the a universal employer's liability based [b] Occupational diseases.-Under act may, at some future time, be as- solely upon the relation of employer the English act of 1906 relating to sailed, if such particular interpreta- and employee, and not upon fault in diseases in particular employments, tion be not now given.” Connole v. the employer").
a surface laborer at the pit head Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 216 Fed. 823, 6. Grand Rapids Lumber Co. v. is not presumably engaged in coal 827. Blair, (Mich.) 157 NW 29.
mining. Scullion v. Cadzow Coal Co., (b) Interpretation by commission. 7. Necessity that injury
7 BWCC 833. - The last contention of the com- while employee is engaged in
[c] In British Columbia the term mission is that the interpretation of ployment see infra § 53.
"engineering work" has been held the act by the commission under ad
See statutory provisions; and not to include clearing land from the vice from the attorney general ought Garment v. Charles Austin Co., 34 natural growth_thereon. Basanta V. to be given weight in the event that Ont. L. 417, 25 Dom LR 833, 9 OntWN Canadian Pac. R. Co., 16 B. C. 304, 5 the act is of doubtful construction. 47; Desilets Laplante, 48 Que. BWCC 723.
under them it shall be presumed that the claim statute is confined to hazardous employments, no comes within their provisions.10
Even such a pro- employment can be treated as such, unless it is vision, however, will not permit a forced construc- by a fair construction of the act declared so to be,l2 tion to be given to their wording. 11 Where the or has been so classified by a board or commis
10. Larsen v. Paine Drug Co., 218 [a] Rules of construction.-"First, | Seeman, 170 App. Div. 133, 155 NYS N. Y. 252, 112 NE 725 [aft 169 App. the express mention of the matters 638 (includes helper on automobile Div. 838, 155 NYS 759]; Post v. Bur- embraced in the several groups nec- delivery truck); Miller v. Taylor, 159 ger, 216_N. Y. 544, 111 NE 351, Ann essarily excludes those hot men- NYS 999 (includes driver of express Cas1916B 158; Powley v. Vivian, 169 tioned (Aultman, etc., Co. v. Syme, motor truck while crossing street to App. Div. 170, 154 NYS 426; Edward- 163 N. Y. 54, 57, 57 NE 168, 79 AMSR deliver package). (10) The opera
v. Jarvis Lighterage Co., 168 565); and, second, the rule of ejus- tion, otherwise than on tracks, on App. Div. 368, 153 NYS 391; Kohler dem generis would prevent any gen. streets, highways, or elsewhere, of v. Frohmann, 167 App. Div. 533, 153 eral language to be extended beyond cars, trucks, wagons, or other vehiNYS 559; McQueeney v. Sutphen, 167 the special language used (Lantry cles, and rollers and engines, proApp. Div. 528, 153 NYS 554.
v. Mede, 127 App. Div. 557, 560, 111 pelled by steam, gas, gasoline, elec[a] Reasons for presumption.- NYS 833; Peo. v. White, 64 App. Div. tric, mechanical, or other
power. (1) "In McQueeney v. Sutphen, 167 390, 392, 72 NYS 91)." Aylesworth American Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh. 128 App. Div. 528, 153 NYS 554, decided v. Phenix Cheese Co., 170 App. Div. Md. 382, 97 A 999 (includes driver at this term of court, we considered 34, 36, 155 NYS 916.
of horse drawn truck). (11) Operathe provision of the Compensation [b] Particular provisions con- tion of vessels. Edwardsen v. JarLaw declaring a presumption that strued.-(1). "Canning or preparation vis Lighterage Co., 168 App. Div. the case of an injured employee is
food stuffs." Aylesworth 368, 153 NYS 391 (the captain of a within the law and found the pre
v. Phoenix Cheese Co., 170 App. Div. lighter is engaged in its "operation" sumption reasonable from the fact
34, 36, 155 NYS 916 (does not include continuously from the beginning to that the premium for insurance is workman employed specifically to
the end of a round trip, including based upon the payroll of the em
harvest ice by a company engaged the loading and unloading of the ployer, the number of employees and
in the preparation of food stuffs); craft, as long as he works on it). the hazards of the different classes De la Gardelle v. Hampton Co., 167
on streets, comprising each group, that the stat- App. Div. 617, 153 NYS 162 (holding highways, or elsewhere of ute, by basing the amount to be paid butcher or assistant chef in a hotel
drawn by horses into the fund upon the payroll and
not included, although injured or mules." Daie v. Saunders, 218 the number of employees, contem
through the slipping of a knife in N. Y. 59, 112 NE 571 (aff 171 App. plates that an employee while at boning a leg of mutton, since the work is engaged or may be considsection did not mean ordinary prep
Div. 528, 534, 157 NYS 1062] (in
cludes injury to teamster while loadered as engaged all the while in the
aration of meats or foodstuffs for ing wagon); Costello v. Taylor, 217 hazardous employment.” Spratt V. cooking purposes); Beckman v. Dele
N. Y. 179, 111 NE 755 (includes an Sweeney, etc., Co., 168 App. Div. 403, rich, 160 NYS 791 (holding employee injury to' a stable employee of an 405, 153 NYS 505 [aff 216 N. Y. 763,
of wholesale grocery
express company, through 111 NE 1100]. (2) "If jured in bottling peroxide, not within
having the exact
one of its horses fall on him as he cause of the injury is not made plain act). (2). "Construction, installation
took it out of to the Commission, the employer is operation of electric light and
a stall); Smith
Price, 168 App. Div. 421, 153 NYS at fault, as he has failed properly to electric power lines, dynamos,
221 (includes a report the accident. appliances, and power transmission
teamster operating He has every means of knowing
a truck who, after returning to the the facts and
lines." In re Brown, 159 NYS 1047, stable, was putting his horse in the should not benefit by withholding 1048 (does not include process
stall in the course of his employthem, If the employee is engaged in
server, claim adjuster, and investian employment declared
ment, when the horse squeezed him hazardous
gator). (3) “Longshore work, inby this law, but at times may work cluding the loading or unloading of
against the side of the stall causing in a non-hazardous employment, it is
his death). (13) "Packing houses,
abattoirs, manufacture not
preparaunreasonable that injury dling the same on any dock, platform the
tion of meats or should be considered within the act or place, or in any warehouse
meat products or other place of storage."
glue." if the employer fails to show all the
De la Gardelle v. Hampton facts."
Co., 167 App. Div. 617, 153 NYS 162
Christensen, 171 App. Div. 284, 285,
(does not include a butcher or an App. Div. 528, 530, 153 NYS 554.
assistant chef in a hotel whose duty [b] Extent of presumption.--"The ragpicker picking rags on a dump
whence refuse statute furthermore provides
it is to distribute meats to the cooks
by scows); Gutheil v. New York Cons.
as ordered and that in any proceeding for the en:
whose knife acciforcement of a claim for compensa
Gas Co., 94 Misc. 690, 158 NYS 622 dentally slipped while boning a leg
of mutton tion thereunder 'it shall be presumed,
the butcher's block,
and severed an artery in his groin, .
resulting in hemorrhage and death);
Kohler V. Frohmann, 167 App. Div. sions of the act. That legislative building and to and from the em- 533, 153 NYS 559 (includes the grindpresumption is, of course, as opera
ployer's wagons). (4) “Manufacture ing of meat by an employee of a
retail meat dealer). (14) "Pile drivtive and binding in this court as in
Mazzarisi v. Ward, 170 App.
ing." the Commission
Paine Drug Co., 218 N. Y. 252, 112 below. When workman or his survivor asks comNE 725 [aff 169 App. Div. 838, 155
Div. 868, 156 NYS 964 (includes driv
of pensation for occupational accident
NYS 759] (includes a general utility | ing sheeting in construction under the statute, the presumption is
man engaged in the establishment). jetty). (15) “Reduction-works, brew
(5) "Manufacture of fertilizers, in: eries, elevators, wharves, clear and sufficient, in the absence of
docks.' cluding garbage substantial evidence to the contrary,
disposal plant.” Guerrieri v. Industrial Ins. Commn., that he was an employee' within the Tomassi v. Christensen, supra (does
84 Wash. 266, 267, 146 P 608 (does not include a ragpicker who picked
not include operation of freight and meaning of the statute and is enti
rags on a dump at the foot of a passenger elevators or lifts). (16) tled to call into activity its machin
street, from whence the garbage and "Storage." Sickles V. ery for the economic distribution of
Ballston Reother refuse were carried out to sea frigerating Storage Co., 171 App. the loss occasioned by such injury
SCOWS). (6) "Manufacture of Div. 108, 156 NYS. 864 (does not inamong all patrons of the industry in
glass products, which he was employed." Rheinwald glass,
clude a fruit buyer for a storage porcelain pottery." Wilson V. Builders' Brick, etc., Co., 168 App.
company, injured in an Div. 425, 433, 153 NYS 598.
Dorflinger, 170 App. Div. 119, 155 accident while going from place to 11. Tomassi Christensen,
NYS 857 (rev on other grounds 218 place inspecting and buying. fruit).
Massaro Macaroni Co., 170
App. Div. 528, 153 NYS 554 (includes 218 N. Y. 410, 113 NE 407] (does
not include the employment of act does not permit the words of the
hour to statute their making looking-glasses of it).
(7) carpenter by the be warped from usual and ordinary meaning. It re
Occupation, enterprise, or business partition). (18) “Structural carpenlates more to the facts; so far as it of building. maintaining, repairing, try; painting
construction, affects the construction of the stat
or demolishing any structure. Up: repair and demolition of buildings
plumbing, sanitary or heat-
covering of indicating that the statute is a remedial one and should be given a lib- carpenter engaged by a farmer to pipes or boilers." Gleisner v. Gross, eral construction in order to carry
build a corncrib); Brown v. Deca- 170 App. Div. 37, 40, 155 NYS 946 out the beneficial purposes intended tur, 188 Ill. A. 147 (includes main- (does not include a janitor injured to be accomplished by the law"). tenance of water mains in connec- in putting out a flag on the roof 12. Uphoff v. State Industrial Bd., tion with waterworks plant by city).
of his employer's building). (8) 271 Ill. 312, 111 NE 128; Tomassi v. “Operation of railways
“Vehicle propelled by steam,
other power." Sheridan Cheese Co., 170 App. Div. 34, 155 clude "process server, claim adjuster, Gro11 Constr. Co., 218 N, Y. 633 mem, NYS 916; Lyon v. Windsor, 159' NYS and investigator"). (9) Operation of 112 NE 568 [rev 155 NYS 859] (the 162,
trucks on highways, Hendricks V. operation of an elevator for a
sion authorized to determine such classification.1
not by the contractual or colloquial characterizaThe test of the nature of employment is by some tion of his duties or position." decisions held to be the ordinary or predominating Hazardous and nonhazardous employments in nature of the employee's duties,14 while by other same business.
Although the principal business of decisions it is held to be the character of the work the employer falls within one of the hazardous in which he is engaged at the time of the injury, groups, a laborer specially hired for a nonhazardous if not outside the scope of his employment.15 In work, although incidental to such business or emany event, it must be determined by his work, and ployment, does not come within the act. By cerporation operating and owning an visions of the workmen's compensa- within the statute." Gleisner V. apartment house not included); Chap- tion act (3 Remington & B. Code Gross, supra. pelle v. Four Hundred and Twelve $$ 6604-1—6604-32), enumerating ex- [a] ilustration.-An employee Broadway Co., 218 N. Y. 632 mem, tra hazardous employments, nor has whose principal duty is to sell 112 NE 569 mem [rev 171 App. Div. it been so classified by the industrial women's clothing is not engaged in 958 mem, 155 NYS 858] (the opera- insurance commission. Collins V. a "hazardous occupation," within the tion of an elevator in a loft build- Terminal Transfer Co., 91 Wash, 463, meaning of the workmen's compening not included); Wilson V. Dor- 157 P 1092.
sation law (Consol. L. c 67) § 2 flinger, 218 N. Y. 84, 112 NE 567 14. Gleisner v. Gross, 170 App. group 38, merely because, in the [rev 155 NYS 857] (the operation of Div. 37, 41, 155 NYS 946; Lyon v. course of his duty as salesman, he an elevator in a mercantile estab- Windsor, 159 NYS 162. See Larsen v. incidentally goes to the factory to lishment not included); Cremin Paine Drug Co., 218 N. Y. 252, 256, obtain completed garments. Lyon v. Mordecai, 155 NYS 859 (the opera- 112 NE 275 (where the court said Windsor, 159 NYS 162. tion of an elevator included); Mc- that while it was "not necessary to
15. Replogle v. Seattle School Intyre V. Hilliard Hotel Co., 155 attempt to lay down a final and uni- Dist. No. 1, 84 Wash. 581. 147 P NYS 859 (the operation of an ele- versal rule on that subject, we feel 196 (holding truck driver whose orvator included). (20) "Warehous- perfectly secure, however, in holding dinary occupation was nonhazardous ing." Mihm Hussey, 155 NYS that where, as in this case, an em
within the act, where he was in860 (does not include an employee ployee is injured while performing jured while under orders from his of a wholesaler maintaining a ware- an act which is fairly incidental to superior, engaged in the installation house for the storage of his
the prosecution of a business and of a dynamo-a hazardous employgoods). (21) “Work in any shop. appropriate in carrying it forward ment). Compare Croteau v. Victoriamill, factory, or other place, on, in and providing for its needs, he or ville Furniture Co., 40. Que. Super. connection with, or in proximity to his dependents are not to be barred 44 (where a workman was injured
any machinery propelled or from recovery because such act is while repairing the roof of a furoperated by steam or other mechani- not a step wholly embraced in the niture factory at which he cal power:
Boody V. K. & C. Mfg. precise and characteristic process or employed, and was held not to Co., 77 N. H. 208, 210, 90 A 859, operation which has been made the have been engaged in the work of LRA1916A 10, AnnCas1914D 1280
basis of the group in which employ- | building); (includes a workman cleaning racks ment is claimed").
16. Gleisner V. Gross, 170 App. in an intake fiume in connection with
"The applicability of the enumera
Div. 37, 155 NYS 946. the water power of a mill, since "the tions or definitions of employments'
Bargey V. Massaro Macaroni word ‘mill' may be used as meaning deemed entitled to the protection of
Co., 218 N. Y. 410, 113 NE 407 [aff a building in which manufacturing the statute is of course not to be de
170 App. Div. 103, 155_NYS 1076); is carried on. It is, however, often termined narrowly and constrainedly,
Ballston Refrigerating used as meaning a manufacturing but rather in the reasonable and com
Storage Co., 171 App. Div. 108, 156 establishment, and when used in
NYS sense manner essential to the
864; Aylesworth.v. Phenix this sense it includes all that is usuvitality of the operation of the stat
Cheese Co., 170 App. Div. 34, 155 ally intended by the plant of a manuute.
NYS 916; Lyon v. Windsor, 159 NYS facturing
If an employee is hired for concern; that is, it in
162. work falling exclusively or predomcludes not only the buildings in
inantly within one which the work is done, but every
[a] Illustrations.-(1) Where de
or more of the thing appurtenant to them").
ceased was employed casually as a (22)
enumerated occupations, his right to Workshops where machinery is used. compensation for injury in the course
carpenter in repairing a building for
defendant who was engaged in the Remsnider v. Union Sav., etc., Co.,
of his employment cannot fairly be
macaroni and saloon business, not 89 Wash. 87, 154 P 135 (does not include a janitor in an office buildwas, at the moment of injury, en
under contract, but on various odd ing, injured while scrubbing down gaged in an act clearly constituting
jobs, he was not in the employ of the walls and the floors of the elethe direct doing of work named in
the company in a business declared
hazardous and his widow could not vator shaft beneath
The painter's right to com-
recover for his death while at work. pensation though the elevator was operated by
for injury sustained at electricity); Wendt v. Industrial Ins. his daily trade does not depend on
Bargey v. Massaro Macaroni Co., 170
App. Div. 103, 155 NYS 1076 [aff Commn., 80 Wash. 111, 141 P 311 a showing that he was at the mo
218 N. Y. 410, 113 NE 407]. (2) ment (includes injury to a carpenter for
paints, or mounting a scaffold. a department store while turning on
Under the workmen's compensation an employee's duties are exclusively defining the business of storage as
act (Consol. L. c 67) $ 2 group 29, an electric switch to sharpen his chisel on a grindstone, in a shop
or predominantly within an enumer
ated employment used for the repair of the store's
an extra hazardous occupation, com
employments, delivery vehicles
pensation cannot be allowed a fruit and which and he is injured while doing work
buyer for a storage company who tained a power lathe, etc., operated fairly within the scope of the or
was injured when an automobile in by electric current). (23) A dinary and accustomed fulfillment
which he was going from place to building used for the business of
of such duties, he a rightful place inspecting and buying fruit storing, charging, and repairing elec- claim, even though the particular
overturned, ch employee's duties tric trucks which are the property act he was doing when mishap befell
with not being in connection
the of others than those who carry on
him would not. of and by itself, such business is a factory within ordinarily be described by the use
business of storage, which implies
merely the housing and care of propthe meaning of B. C. Rev. St. c 2 11. of phraseology contained in the
erty. Sickles v. Ballston RefrigEvans v. B. C. Electric R. Co., (B. C.) statute oras the doing of work
erating Storage Co., 171 App. Div. 29 WestLR 435, 7 West Wkly 121. enumerated in the statute. To
108, 156 NYS 864. (24) Compensation may be allowed hold otherwise would defeat the
[b] Discussion of rule.-"The under the Nova Scotia Workmen's fair purpose of the law, and make
Workmen's Compensation Law is leCompensation Act, in respect of an
its operation hinge and its benefits gal enactment of a social conviction injury to a teamster while driving depend on harsh, arbitrary, and un
that the risks incurred by those who truck and a team of horses in workable distinctions which would
do the manual work of inherently the delivery of the output of the
inevitably paralyze its practical dangerous and 'hazardous' employfactory, although at some distance workings. Where, however, as ap- ments should be made a charge upon therefrom, the horses and truck be- | parently here, the employee's ordi
the cost of the product, without reing a part of the factory "plant" nary duties and accustomed scope of gard of proof of legal fault. It does under the extended meaning "given activities do not come exclusively
not represent a belief that, because by & 2 subs 2 to the word "factory," or predominantly within the cate
some part of the employer's business so that an injury "on, in or about" gory of enumerated employments, requires some of the employés to any part of the plant is within the and only casually and incidentally
defined 'hazardous,' statute. O'Toole v. Brandram-Hen
does he do work fairly falling thereby all the employés of that derson, 48 N. S. 293, 21 Dom LR 83. within that category, his right to business become entitled to the stat
13. Collins v. Terminal Transfer remuneration must hinge on a find- utory indemnity for disabling acciCo., 91 Wash. 463, 157 P 1092: Rem- ing that he sustained injury while dent. Here again the presence of snider v. Union Sav., etc., Co., 89 actually and momentarily doing work the indemnity companies as a preWash. 87, 154 P 135; Guerrieri v. named in the statute. If the em- dominant factor in the provision of Industrial Ins. Commn., 84 Wash. ployer shows that the employee was insurance under the statute has led 266, 146 P 608.
not so engaged when he met with in- to confusion of interests, and has [a] Illustration.--The employment jury, he is not entitled to reimburse- brought in a practice broader than as helper to a driver of an auto- ment under the statute, even though the statute. Protection of the emmobile truck is not within the pro- he at times did work embraced 'ployer against claims by any worker
tain of the statutes it is expressly provided that reclamation of arid lands; and to work under the if any employer, besides employing workmen in a Isthmian canal commission, the bureau of mines hazardous employment, shall also employ workmen the forestry service, and the lighthouse service. 21 in employment not extra hazardous, the act shall English acts. Under the act of 1906 all employapply only to the extra hazardous departments and ments are included.22 The original act of 1897 apemployments and the workmen employed therein.18 plied only to employment on, in, or about a railUnder such a statute it is immaterial which is the road, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, principal, and which the incidental, business.19 and to employment on, in, or about any building
Federal act. All civil employees of the United which exceeded thirty feet in height, and which States are within the operation of the act of 1916.20 was either being constructed or repaired by means The prior law, originally enacted in 1908, applied of scaffolding, or being demolished, or on which to manufacturing establishments of the United machinery driven by steam, water, or other meStates, arsenals, navy yards, construction of river chanical power was being used for the purpose of and harbor or fortification work, or work in the the construction, repair, or demolition thereof.23 has become a common undertaking | Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 127. (7) Elec- | machete in cutting trees. In re of the insurance carrier. The em- tric light and power plant of Pedez, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 171. ployer 'insures' himself against any executive department at which ice is Machine printer operating a claims by his employés, no matter also made. In re Pyrah, Op. Sol.
roller press. In re Rawlins, Op. Sol. what their principal or casual duties. Dept. Labor 129. (8) Mail bag re- Dept. Labor 170. (5) Plumber and Yet this fact should not lead to judi-pair shop of post-office department tinner working on roofs and stacks. cial legislation broadening the statu- at which a variety of mail equip-In re Thennard, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor tory purpose.' Lyon v. Windsor, 159 ment is made. In re Kennedy, Op. 167. (6) Policeman in Isthmian NYS 162, 167.
Sol. Dept. Labor 131. (9) Mechani- Canal Zone. In re Golden, Op. Sol. 18. Wendt V. Industrial Ins. cal plant of Smithsonian Institution Dept. Labor 159. (7) Time inspector Commn.. 80 Wash. 111, 141 P 311. at which steam power and electric required to attend men occupied in 19. State v. Business Property Se- light are generated
and museum actual construction work of Isthmian curity Co., 87 Wash. 627, 152 P 334 furniture, etc., made. In re Strong, canal. In re Van Sittert, Op. Sol. (holding that one who is engaged in Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 132. (10) Car- Dept. Labor 169.. (8) Water boy the business of managing business penter and machine shop connected serving water to men employed in buildings for the owners, including
Indian industrial school at actual construction work of Isthmian the collection and disbursement of which furniture is made. In canal. In re Garsia, Op. Sol. Dept. rentals, but who, as a department Clarke, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 133. Labor 166. of that business, employs a main- (11) Carpenter shop in the quarter- [f] Isthmian canal commission; tenance force, including painters, en- master's shop at the United States Nonhazardous employments.-(1) gineers, and a carpenter, is subject Military Academy, West Point, N. Y. Cemetery laborer wheeling stone in to the payment of premiums to the In re McCreery, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor a barrow. In re Carney, Op. Sol. industrial insurance commission, as 134.
Dept. Labor 173. (2) Cook in required by the workmen's compen- [b] Places held not to be manu- hotel kitchen. In re Reisinger, Op. sation act [L. (1911) p 345), since facturing establishments.-(1) Local Sol. Dept. Labor 161. (3) Hospital liability thereunder is not deter- office of weather bureau at Detroit, attendant performing the manual mined by the character of the prin- although a printing press is there service usual about a hospital. In re cipal business engaged in, but at- operated. In re McAllister, Op. Sol. Renwick, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 172. taches if any
department of the Dept. Labor 121. (2) Lighthouse | (4) Janitor rendering services chiefly business is extra hazardous); Hille- tender, a vessel attached to a light-of a domestic character, In re Jarstad v. Industrial Ins. Commn., 80 house depot and used in transport-vis, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 174. (5) Wash. 426, 142 P 913, AnnCas1916Bing workmen and supplies and in Laborer employed
a delivery 789; Wendt v. Industrial Ins. Commn., the placement and upkeep of aids wagon. In re Palacios, Op. Sol. Dept. 80 Wash. 111, 117, 141 P 311. See to navigation. In re Lambert, Op. Labor 162. (6) Laborer in a mess Mazzarisi v. Ward, 170 App. Div. 868, Sol. Dept. Labor 122. (3) Naval ob- hall in the quartermaster's depart156 NYS 964 (where it was held that, servatory. In re Lamkin, Op. Sol. ment. In re Traviso, Op. Sol. Dept. where an employee was engaged in
Dept. Labor 128. (4) A laboratory | Labor 161. (7) Scavenger occupied driving sheet piling, it was immate- used on for making tests of ma- in collecting garbage ar hauling it rial that, at the moment of injury,
terials. In re Meissner, Op. Sol. Dept. away in carts. In re Gill, Op. Sol. he was performing an act more ar
Labor 131. (5) Aqueduct and filtra- | Dept. Labor 170. (8) Scytheman in proximately incident to the making tion plant which collects, purifies, a grass cutting gang. In re Migeles, of the piling than to the driving). and delivers city water. In
Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 162. (9) Store“If the employer conducts any de- Schlosser, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 133. room clerk. In re Inniss, Op. Sol. partment of his business, whether (6) Storekeeper gauger of the in- Dept. Labor 160. (10) Telephone large or small, as an extra hazardous ternal revenue service is not em- operator. In
Etienne, Op. Sol. business within the meaning and ployed in manufacturing establish- Dept. Labor 163. (11) Water boy defined terms of this act, his work- ment. In re Roberts, Op. Sol. Dept. delivering water to grass cutting
would come within the class Labor 127. (7) Pile driving by em- gangs. In re Price, Op. Sol. Dept. designated by the act, and be enti- ployee of bureau of fisheries at work Labor 163. tled to the protection of the act." about a lobster pound is not work 22. St. 6 Edw. VII c 58; 20 HalsWendt v. Industrial Ins. Commn.,
done in manufacturing establish- bury L. Eng. p 153. supra,
ment. In re Feltis, Op. Sol. Dept. 23. St. 60 & 61 Vict. c 37. 20. Act Sept. 7, 1916 (39 U. S. Labor 123. (8) Hauling and truck
Particular words and phrasos St. at L. 742 c 458).
ing oats from car to dock by laborer of the text have been construed in 21. Act May 30, 1908 (35 U. S. St. in army quartermaster's department the following cases: • (1) Railway. at L. 556), amended by acts Febr. 24, is not work in or in connection with Pearce v. London, etc., R. Co.,  1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 645) March manufacturing establishment.
2 Q. B. 100, 2 WCC 47; Milner v. 4, 1911 (36 U. S. St. at L. 1452). March Gray, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 118. Great Northern R. Co.,  1 Q. B. 11, 1912 (37 U. S. St. at L. 74), July [c] Reclamation service; Hazard-795, 2 WCC 51; Fullịck V. Evans, 27, 1912 (37 U. S. St. at L. 239). ous employments.-(1) Ditch rider etc., Co., 3 WCC 164. (2) Factory.
[a] Places held manufacturing required to ride at night and to dis- Wrigley V. Whittaker,  A. C. establishments.-(1) Government cover and attend to breaks
299, 4 WCC_93 [aff 84 L. T. Rep. N. printing office. In re Blaine, Op. canal. In re Redburn, Op. Sol. Dept. S. 415, 3 WCC 61]; Handford v. Sol. Dept. Labor 117. (2) Light-Labor 154, (2) Machine attendant Clarke, (1907) 2 K. B. 409, 9 WCC house depot, portion of the work at ice plant. In re Riggs, Op. Sol. 87; Smith v. Standard Steam Fishing consisting of manufacture and re- Dept. Labor 155.
Co.,  2 K. B. 275, 8 WCC 76; pair of materials, etc. In re Wy- [d] Reclamation service; Nonhaz- Spacey Dowlais Gas, ete, Co., gant. Op. Sol. Dept, Labor 118. (3) ardous employments.-(1) Cook's  2 K. B. 879, 8 WCC 29; Dyer Bureau of engraving and printing | helper, working in cooking quarters. v. Swift Cycle Co., (1904] 2 K.' B. 36, where bank notes and treasury cer- In re Jones, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 155. 6 WCC 74; Barrett v. Kemp, [1904) 1 tificates are made. In re Clark. Op. (2) Clerk employed at a soda foun- K. B. 517, 6 WCC 78; Stevens v. GenSol. Dept. Labor 120. (4) Sawmill tain in a store, under the reclama- eral Steam Nav. Co., (1903) 1 K. B. at which lumber is sawed and tion service. In re Arnold, Op. Sol. 890, 5 WCC 95; Law V. Graham, dressed and shingles are made. In Dept. Labor 158.
(1901) 2 K. B. 327, 3 WCC 131; Carre Herron, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 124. [e] Isthmian canal commission; rington v. Bannister, [1901) 1 Q. B. (5) Army quartermaster's depot at Hazardous employments-(1) Ambu- 20, 3 WCC 146; Francis v. Turner, which clothing and tents are made lance teamster in the Canal Zone.  1 Q. B. 478, 2 WCC 61; Hali (employee entitled to compensation, In re Thompson, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor V. Snowden, etc., Co.,  2 Q. B. although not engaged in manufac- 165. (2) Hospital orderly in attend- 136, 1 WCC 73; McNicholas v. Dawturing operations). In re Nicholas. ance
persons violently insane. son,  1 Q. B. 773, 1 WCC 80; Op. Sol. Dept. Labor 125. (6) Black- In re Small, Op. Sol. Dept. Labor Doswell v. Cowell, 95 L. T. Rep. N. S. smith shop at which tools, etc., are 164. (3) Laborer with gang at 38, 8 WCC 33; Morgan v. Tydvil Enmade and repaired. In re Fenton, work clearing ground, using gineering, etc., Co., 1 BWCC 78; Har
VII. EMPLOYERS WITHIN INTENT OF ACTS  A. Classes of Employers Intended. The under it in whole or in part.25 The fact that the question of what employers are within the opera- abrogation of common-law defenses as to railroad tion of a compensation act depends on the fair companies by a compensation act includes only shop construction of its terms. Under an elective act, and office employees does not prevent a railroad where the legislative intent to the contrary is not company from accepting the act as to all of its apparent, an employer of a class not subject to the employees.26 operation of the act may nevertheless elect to come An infant may be liable as an employer to pay
rison v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 9 London General Omnibus Co., ? WCC | Where a master plumber, a carpenter, WCC 82; Powell v. Aston, WCC 77; 83; Adams v. Great Western R. Co., and a mason formed a partnership to Burnett v. Drury Lane Theatre, 6 WCC 87; Smith v. Turner, 3 WCC build and sell houses, but each conWCC 56; McGregor v. Wright, 3 WCC 143; Tench v. Fish, 3 WCC 140. (13) tinued in his regular work aside from 121; Lawson v. Atlantic Transport | Iron mill. Johnson v. London Gen. the joint adventure, the widow of a Co., 2 WCC 53; Watkinson v. Crouch, Omnibus Co., 7 WCC 83. (14) Ship- servant of the plumber who employed 1 WCC 137; Medd v. MacIver, 1 WCC building yard. Spencer v. Livett, regularly less than five men could
(3) Mine. Ellison v. Longden,  Q. B. 498, 2 WCC 112. (15) not base a claim for compensation on 18 T. L. R. 48, 4 WCC 69; Turnbull Dock. Houlder Line v. Griffin, 
partnership agency for the V. Lambton Collieries, 2' WCC 84. A. C. 220, 7 WCC 87; Kenny v. Harri- | plumber of the carpenter, so as to (4) Engineering work. Back v. Dick, son,  2 K. B. 168, 4 WCC 60; include his employees, bringing the etc., Co., [1906) A. C. 325, 8 WCC 40
Bartell v. Gray,  1 K. B. 225, number of employees within the [aff (1905) 2 K. B. 148, 1 WCC 45]; 4 WCC 95; Hennessey v. McCabe, workmen's compensation act (L. Tullock v. Waygood, [1906) 2 K. B.  1 Q. B. 491, 2 WCC 80; Flow-  c 138, as amended by L. (1915) 261, 8 WCC 72; Rogers v. Cardiff ers v. Chambers,  2 Q. B. 142, C 288), when such servant was killed Corp.,  2 K. B. 832, 8 WCC 51; 1 WCC 51; Raine v. Jobson, 17 T. L. in the plumber's individual service, Atkinson v. Lumb,  1 K. B. R. 627, 3 WCC 135; Durrie v. Warren, and not that of the joint adventure, 861, 5 WCC 106; Fletcher v. London 1 WCC 78. (16) Wharf. Owens v. nor because of such fact was there United Tramways, [1902) 2 K. B. 269, Campbell, [1904) 2 K. B. 60, 6 WCC any estoppel to deny liability. Coady 4 WCC 71; Wrigley v. Bagley, [1901) 54; Ellis v. Cory,  1 K. B. 38, v. Igo, (Conn.) 98 A 328. (2) A 1 Q. B. 780, 3 WCC 61; Rimmer v. 4 WCC 62; Haddock v. Humphrey, farmer is not brought within a statPremier Gas Engine Co., 97 L. T. Rep.  1 Q. B. 609, 2 WCC 77. (17) ute covering employers of four or N. S. 226, 9 WCC 56; Coles v. Ander- Alteration of a railroad. Adams V. more employees in a common employson, 21 T. L. R. 204,7 WCC 85; Cos- Shaddock,  2 K. B. 859, 8 WCC ment by reason of the temporary, grove v. Partington, 17_ T. L. R. 39, 58. (18) Near. Streeter v. Courtney, although regularly recurring, employ3 WCC 167; Jackson v. Jones, 9 WCC 5 WCC 123. (19) About. Fenn v. ment of more than four employees 65; Murphy v. O'Donnell, 8 ÝCC 70; Miller,  1 Q. B. 788, 2 WCC 55; for specific occasions. Kelley v. Davis V. Aerated Bread Co., 8 WCC Chambers V. Whitehaven Harbour Haylock, 163 Wis. 326, 157 NW 1094. 56; Rochester v. Whiting, 6 WCC 91; Comrs.,  2 Q. B. 132, 1 WCC 47; 25. In re Keaney, 217 Mass. 5, 8, Pattison v. White, 6 WCC 61; Lord Lowth v. Ibbotson,  1 Q. B. 104 NE 438 (where the court said: v. Turner, 5 WCĆ 87; McGregor v. 1003, 1 WCC 46; Powell v. Brown, "The act is a practical measure deWright, 3 WCC 121; Belsey v. Sadler,  1 Q. B. 157, 1 WCC 44; Wood- signed for use among a practical peo1 WCC 141; Bennett v. Aird, 1 WCC ham v. Atlantic Transport Co.,  ple. There appears to be no reason 138. (5) Building. Hartley v. Quick, 1 Q. B, 15, 1 WCC 52; Spencer v. Har- for saying that a farmer may not  i K. B. 359, 7 WCC 51; Ayl- | rison, 1 BWCC 76; Owen v. Clark, 3 adopt it if he desires. Any contract ward v. Matthews, 1905] 1 K. B. 313, WCC 170.
of insurance made by him under its 7 WCC 49; Hardy v. Moss, 6 WCC 68. [b] The act of 1900, extending the terms is valid and enforceable. On (6) Exceeding thirty feet in height. act of 1897 to the employment of the other hand, if he does not desire McGrath v. Neill,  1 K. B. 211, workmen in agriculture, has been to make it available for all of his 4 WCC 47 (aff 3 WCC 67); Rixsom v. construed in Smith v: Coles,,  employees, there is no insuperable Pritchard,  1 Q. B. 800, 2 WCC 2 K. B. 827, 8 WCC 116; Smithers v. objection to his undertaking an insur65; Billings v. Holloway,  1 Q. Wallis,  1 K. B. 200, 5 WCC ance for a limited portion of them. B. 70, 1 WCC 59; McGregor v. Wright, 147; Taylor v. Jones, 1 BWCC 3; If there are those, separable from 3 WCC 121; McGrath v. Neill, 3 WCC Grant v. Ward, 7 WCC 128; Bolt v. others by classification and definition, 67. (7) Construction. Hoddinott v. Heywood, 5 WCC 151.
whose labor is more exposed or danNewton, etc., Co., [1901) A. C. 49, 3 24. See statutory provisions; and gerous
whom he may desire to WCC 74; Plant v. Wright,  1 Bayon v. Beckley, 89 Conn. 154,'93 A protect for any other reason, there is K. B. 353, WCC 63; Hoddinott v. 139 (holding that, under workmen's nothing in the act reasonably interNewton, etc., Co.,  1 Q. B. 1018, compensation act (Acts (1913) c 138] preted to show why he may not do 1 WCC 62; Wagstaff v. Perks, 87 L. pt A S 1, abolishing in an action for so"). Compare Bayon v. Beckley, 89 T. Rep, N. S. 110, 5 WCC 110; Ward- personal injuries to an employee the Conn. 154, 93 A 139 (holding that the roper 7. Tawse, 7 WCC 67; Frid v. defenses of contributory negligence, workmen's compensation act [Acts Fenton, 2 WCC 66. (8) Repair. Mc- negligence of fellow servants, and (1913) c 138] pt B § 4,, which proCabe v. Jopling, etc., Travelling assumption of risk; pt A $2 provid- | vides that every employer not acceptCradle,  1 K. B 222, 6 WCC ing that $ 1 shall not apply to actions ing pt B shall be liable for an action 100; Dredge v. Conway, (1901) 2. K. for personal injuries sustained by in accordance with pt A which abolB. 42, 3 WCC 104; Wood v. Walsh, employees of any employer having ishes the defenses of contributory  1 Q. B. 1009, 1 WCC 68. (9) regularly less than five employees, negligence, assumption of risk, and Scaffolding. Hoddinott v. Newton, by casual employees, or by outwork- negligence of fellow servants, with etc., Co.,  A. C. 49, 3 WCC 74; ers, nor to actions against any em- certain exceptions, among them being O'Brien v. Dobbie, 
1 K. B. 346, ployer who shall have accepted pt B employees of employers who regu7 WCC 68; Crowther v. West Riding of the act; and pt B providing for larly employ less than five employees, Window Cleaning Co., [1904) 1 K. B. the payment of compensation to in- and that every employee not accept232, 6 WCC 72; Elvin v. Woodward, jured employees in cases where both ing pt B shall lose the benefits of pt  1 K. B 838, 5 WCC 90; | parties have accepted the act and A, does not, because there is less inMarshall v. Rudeforth,  2 K. B. raised a conclusive presumption of ducement for such employers and em175, 4 WCC_55; Veazey v: Chattle, acceptance from failure to give ployees to accept the act, indicate an [1902) 1 K. B. 494, 4 WCC 49; Maude notice of nonacceptance, the phrase intention to exempt employers who v. Brook,  1 Q. B. 575, 2 WCC in pt A $ 2, "any employer who has regularly employ less than five em69; Hoddinott v. Newton, etc., Co., accepted part B of the act," is not ployees from the provisions of the  1 Q. B. 1018, 1 WCC 62; Wood restricted to employers other than act, since it will not be presumed that V. Walsh,  1 Q. B. 1009, 1 WCC those previously mentioned in the the legislature enacted an unjust pro68; Ferguson v. Green, 83_L. T. Rep. same section so as to preclude em- vision merely to compel the acceptN. S. 461, 3 WCC 113; Fletcher v. ployers who regularly employ less ance of another unjust provision); Hawley, 21 T. L. R. 191, 7 WCC_74; than five employees from accepting Shafer v. Parke-Davis, (Mich.) 159 McGregor V. Wright, 3 WCC 121; pt B, and such employers are there- NW 304 (holding that a company Stack v. Counsell, 1 WCC 133. (10) fore subject to the provisions of pt which manufactured drugs and mainOther mechanical power. Wilmott v. B if they give no notice of nonaccept- tained a farm for the preparation of Paton, (1902] 1 K. B. 237, 4 WCC 65; ance); Udey v. Winfield, (Kan.) 155 serums did not, by a statement in Mellor v. Tompkinson,  1 Q. B. P 43, 44 (where the court said: general terms and by the posting of 374, 1 WCC 57; Bennett v. Aird. 1 “Assuming, without deciding, that a notices in its laboratory, offices, and WCC 138. (11) Public building. Mile municipal corporation like the defend- place of business in a city, bring End Guardians v. Hoare,  2 K. ant, if employing the requisite num- itself within the compensation act as B. 483, 5 WCC 100. (12) Warehouse. ber of persons in such plant, should to its farm laborers); Bayer v. Bayer, Green v. Britten,  1 K. B. 350, be deemed to be an employer within (Mich.) 158 NW 109, 110 (where it is 6 WCC 82; Weavings v. Kirk,  the meaning of the act in question, said:
man may be engaged in 1 K. B. 213, 6 WCC 95; Moreton v. it must he held that the testimony more than one business, and as to one Reeve, 97 L. T. Rep. N. S. 63, 9 WCC failed to show that 15 persons were or more may elect to come under the 72; Buckingham v. Fulham, 21 T. L. thus employed. The number could terms of the act, and as to another R. 511, 7 WCC 79; Burr v. Whiteley, not be completed without including or others elect not to be governed by 19 T. L. R. 117, 5 WCC 102; Hains- mere clerical employés in the office the act'). borough v. Ralli, 18 T. L. R. 21; of the city clerk"); Kelley v. Hay- 26. Minneapolis, etc., R. Evans v, Wilson, 1 BWCC 148; Carter lock, 163 Wis, 326, 157 NW 1094. State Industrial Commn., 153 Wis. v. Shipway, 8 WCC 37; Johnson v. [a] Number of er oyees,-(1)' 552, 141 NW 1119, AnnCas1914D 655