cavation and also arriving more quickly and was injured, accident did
not arise out of employment. Inland Steel Co. vs. Lambert (Ind.).... 347
Course of Employment.-Determination that an accident did or did not arise
out of or in course of employment, or whether it was due to wilful
misconduct is a legal conclusion rather than an ultimate fact, such
as is required by the act. Inland Steel Co. vs. Lambert (Ind.)....
...... 347
Course of Employment.-One employed as repairer of musical instruments
permitted to do work at home slipping on ice while going to take
car to employer's store was not injured in course of employment. In-
dustrial Commission of State of Colorado et al. vs. Anderson (Colo.) 305
Course of Employment.-Compensation can be recovered where inability to
labor is caused by pain resulting from injury arising out of employment.
Trowbridge v. Wilson & Co. (Kan.)....
Course of Employment.-Employee loitering in street talking withother
employees about social affairs and run over by director's automobile
was not injured in course of employment. Balboa Amusement Pro-
ducing Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission, et al. (Cal.)...... 717
Course of Employment.-Employee returning to city to spend Sunday from
town to which he had been sent despite instructions to remain there did
not sustain finding that accident arose out of employment. International
Harvester Co. of New Jersey v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).. 762
Course of Employment.-Evidence supported finding that plaintiff was in-
jured by having to wade through flood water which overflowed defend-
ant's car works, an old wound on foot being thereby infected requiring
amputation. Monson v. Battelle (Kansas.)....
Course of Employment.-Evidence sustained arbitrator's finding that ac-
cident to stockyard's employee pursuing customary course near rail-
road tracks and killed by train was killed within course of employment.
Chicago Packing Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).......
Course of Employment.-Under statute defining employee and employer,
employee in coal or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employ-
ment is not entitled to compensation on theory that it was in connec-
tion with operation of vehicle because wood would ultimately be hauled
by such vehicle. Casterline v. Gillen. In re Fidelity & Casualty Co. of
New York (N. Y.)..
Course of Employment.-Where injuries were aggravated by insufficient
medical attention, employee's right to recover for such aggravation did
not fall within the act, not being injury "arising out of employment."
Ellamar Mining Co. of Alaska v. Possus (U. S.)..
Course of Employment.-Where intestate was injured while working on
employer's barn, under its orders and control he was injured in course
of employment. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Curtis et al. (Texas.).. 875
Course of Employment.-Employee injured while repairing clamshell dredge
which his employer intended to sell was not injured in course of em-
ployer's business of leasing road making machines. Stansbury v. In-
dustrial Acc. Commission of California et al. (Cal.)...
Course of Employment.-Where employee assaults another solely to gratify
his feeling of anger or hatred, injury results from voluntary act of
assailant and cannot be said to arise out of employment, but it is
otherwise where injured employee is defending his employer or his
property or interest, or when assault is due to some duty of employ-
ment-fight over ladle resulting in death of employee injury did not
arise out of decedent's employment. Jacquemin et al. V. Turner &
Seymour Mfg. Co. (Conn.).
Course of Employment.-Board's finding that employee's injury was received
in accident arising in course of employment is a legal conclusion and
not a finding of fact. Retmier et al. v. Cruse (Ind.)..
Course of Employment.-Claimant's alleged infection from vaccination did
not arise out of her employment, but if it was result of vaccination,
it was through active agency of board of health, for whose acts de-
fendant was not responsible. Krout v. J. L. Hudson Co. et al. (Mich.). 1084
Course of Employment.-Where employee of manufacturing corporation en-
gaged to drive motor truck and make deliveries was injured in trans-
porting law books as a favor to stockholder, superior directing him to
deliver the books in such way as not to interfere with his regular work
such employee was not injured within course of employment-where
employee suffered injuries in attempting, at request of woman in house
to carry books to second floor, injuries so suffered cannot be deemed to
have occurred in course of employment, employee admitting that but
for woman's request he would not have attempted to carry heavy books
up a winding flight of stairs. Carnahan V. Mailometer Co. et al.
(Mich.)
Course of Employment.-Employee of garbage reduction company who drove
one of its collecting wagons and did extra work to load a fertilizer known
as "tankage" into cars, who while on such extra work went upon roof
of building while attempting to pull down a rope, fell through skylight
and was killed, suffered an injury in the course of his employment.
Ross et al. v. Genesee Reduction Co.-In re United States Fidelity &
Guaranty Co. (N. Y.)..
683
Course of Employment.-Burden is on claimant to furnish evidence from
which inference can reasonably be drawn that injuries or death was
caused by accident arising out of employment. Sugar Valley Coal Co.
v. Drake (Ind.)
Course of Employment.-Driver of bakery wagon, who accidentally slipped
in getting off and fell and received spiral fracture of right tibia, arising
out of and in course of employment, healing of which was prolonged by
reason of his pre-existing syphilitic condition, which aggravated by
accident resulted in loss of sight, while he might be entitled to com-
pensation for fracture was not entitled to compensation because of
permanent physical disability. Borgsted VS. Shults Bread Co. et al.
(N. Y.)
666
Course of Employment.-Employee of county required to work on steel grader
while thunderstorm was threatening was not exposed to more than
normal risk which people of community generally are subject to and
there could be no recovery for his death from lightning under act.
Wiggins v. Industrial Accident Board (Mont.)....
Course of Employment.-Evidence sufficient to justify board in finding that
some marauder suddenly surprised night watchman and killed him
because he was night watchman. Mechanics' Furniture Co. VS. In-
dustrial Board of Illinois et al. (III.)...
Course of Employment.-Evidence sufficient to sustain finding that accident
to janitor by electric shock while cleaning room which he had been for-
bidden to enter and against which he had been warned arose out of and in
course of employment. Northern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Pietzvak
(Ind.)
590
Course of Employment.-Is the work which the workman is performing at
time of injury which determines whether he is at the time servant of
another-evidence does not warrant finding of board that decedent was
servant of defendant operator of coal mine within the act. Sugar
Valley Coal Co. v. Drake..
Course of Employment.-Road construction foreman struck by workman
whom he discharged for insubordination and refusal to obey, received
injury "arising out of and in the course of employment." San
Bernadino County vs. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California
(Cal.)
Course of Employment.-Purchaser of grain on cars, owing to shortage of
cars. casually employed applicant to help load grain, left by sellers on
platform, was not liable to pay compensation, the work not being in the
usual course of business. Carter v. Industrial Acc. Commission of Cali-
fornia et al. (Cal.)..
Course of Employment.-Servant of tinner who rode to job and while horse
was being watered was killed by automobile while crossing street to
buy tobacco, was not killed by accident arising out of employment.
In re Betts et al. (Ind.).
569
Course of Employment.-Plaintiff was not on duty when hurt, was not in
service of defendant, was not employed to be upon train that collided
with another of defendant's trains. defendant had no control over his
occupation or conduct and had divested himself of his character as an
employee or servant. The plaintiff was a passenger at time of his injury
and not entitled to relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Pierson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (N. Y.)
Course of Employment.-Indigent applicant employed as teamster in
municipal woodyard, was when proceeding to remove household goods
of indigent family, as directed by superintendent, was within scope of
his employment, so that the city would be liable. City of Oakland v.
Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.)...
488
Course of Employment.-Trucker injured while playing with elevator man.
Held, not injured in course of employment. Feda v. Cudahy Packing
Co. (Neb.)
Course of Employment.-Where decedent employed by city of Boston to
spread cracked stone on roads was fatally injured when engineer of
steam roller, hired by city for work by day, called decedent to talk about
personal matters, decedent stepped on roller because he was getting wet
and accident resulted, it was not within the course of employment-
if employee is injured in going to or returning from work on master's
premises or on premises available for the purpose, or if during intervals
of leisure which occur in the course of employment, still he may be
within the scope of employment. In re O'Toole (Mass.)....
620
Course of Employment.-Evidence insufficient to show there was such steady
employment as to render express company liable for death of boy.
Baer's Express & Storage Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.). 512
Course of Employment.-If to collect accounts for defendant company was
exclusive purpose of company's collector of accounts in going to another
city, the collector who was secretary treasurer of the company was
discharging duties of his employment. In re Raynes (Ind.).
Course of Employment.-Where it was customary for employees to heat an
iron in furnace and drop it in bucket of water for purpose of heating
water for washing, where furnace was out and for first time a servant
went to another department and placed his bucket in a tank of boiling
acid, thinking it boiling water. and there was an explosion, injuries
arose out of and in course of employment. In re Ayres (Ind.)
Course of Employment.-Presumption arises from the language of Work-
men's Compensation Act, providing employer shall secure compensation
to his employee in specified ways. that defendant employer had complied
with duty placed upon him and burden is on servant to establish fact
which prevents the application of Workmen's Compensation Law to him-
self-engineer having kept dog on premises, it must be assumed that dog
remained there with permission of employer-fact that cause of injury
to servant was animate rather than inanimate does not alter result that
injury was in course of employment. Barone v. Brambach Piano Co.
(N. Y.)
Course of Employment.-Cigar packer who frequently delivered cigars to cus-
tomers, stopped in factory late at night and was requested by employer
to deliver cigars, was killed within scope of employment. Grieb et al.
v. Hammerle et al., State Industrial Commission (N. Y.).............
Course of Employment.-Evidence showed that work of employee and another
in getting suitable rock out of a car when there was none in a bin in
which it was commonly stored for their use was within scope of em-
ployment. Southern Pac. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission et
al. (Cal.)
Course of Employment.-Chambermaid in doing work of janitor without em-
ployer's knowledge or consent was acting beyond scope of employment
and could not recover compensation. Williamson v. Industrial Accident
Commission (Cal.)
Course of Employment.-Not sufficient that accident occurred in the course of
employment, but causative danger must also arise out of it-foreman en
route to order lumber and injured, was injured in course of employment,
though it was before time for commencement of work. Mueller Const.
Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..
Course of Employment.-Employee who had fallen off a boat and was swim-
ming from front to stern when drowned, was acting within scope of em-
ployment. Boyle v. Mahoney & Tierney (Conn.).....
Course of Employment.-Servant shot and killed by one employee as result of
quarrel over collection of shortages was injured in course of employment.
Polar Ice & Fuel Co. et al. v. Mulray (Ind.).
Course of Employment.-The act does not provide insurance for workman
against every happening to him while engaged in his employment, but
only against accidents arising out of and in course of employment, and
an accident caused by a fellow workman doing wrongful act entirely
outside the scope of his employment is not an accident so arising, unless
it appears that it was what was reasonably within the contemplation of
employer. Mountain Ice Co. v. McNeil et al. (N. J.)...
Course of Employment.-Janitor in defendant's office building who lived in
house rented from defendant at some distance from office and was killed
by electric wire falling across lawn just as he was going to work and
was carrying basket of laundry for wife who conducted restaurant for
defendant in its building was not killed on the premises or in plant or
in course of employment. Murphy v. Ludlum Steel Co. (N. Y.)...
Course of Employment.-Collector for brewery killed in saloon away from
plant was within protection of act which includes employees in service
of employer carrying on hazardous employment, although not actually
engaged in hazardous employment-where one was intentionally shot
and killed for purpose of robbing him there was "accidental injury."
Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co.-In re Central & Western
New York Brewers' & Maltsters' Mut. Ins. Co. (N. Y.).
Coverage.
Coverage. The compensation law authorizing recovery for injuries in
"heating engineering; installation and covering of pipes or boilers,"
prior to amendment did not include a repairman of a building injured
while lifting a radiator which he was going to connect with the heating
apparatus. Kammer v. Hawk-In re Globe Indemnity Co. (N. Y.).... 104
Coverage. This act does not enlarge the duty of an employer, who is not a
subscriber, nor transform into negligence conduct which otherwise would
impose no liability. Mammott v. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.).
Coverage.-Bricklayer, employed by lithographing company to paint up
wall of its plant and repair cracks, was engaged in employment requisite
to business carried on by company and injury received was within course
of employment. Dose vs. Moehle Lithographic Co. et al. (N. Y.)...
Coverage. Coal dealer selling retail and storing only for purpose of im-
mediate sale was not engaged in business of storage within the meaning
of the act-it is not the magnitude of the business, but the manner of
its conduct which controls "storage" is not properly applied to
merchandise which a merchant has on hand for immediate sale and dis-
position. In re Roberto vs. John F. Schmadeke, Inc., et al. (N. Y.).... 265
Coverage. Employee's right to compensation being contractual accom-
panies him wherever he goes and can be defeated only by other words
in the statute equally plain and unmistakable. Hagenback et al. V.
Leppert (Ind.)
Coverage. Includes all employees in industrial pursuits not expressly ex-
cepted therein. Separator on thresing outfit going from farm to farm is
not an agricultuarl laborer within the meaning of act. In re Boyer (Ind.).
Coverage.- -Second mate on voyage from San Francisco to Canada and re-
turn fell within exclusive jurisdiction of United States courts. Tallac
Co. v. Pillsbury, et al (Cal.).
Coverage. It was necessary to warrant recovery for trial judge to find the
death was caused by accident arising out of and in course of employ-
ment and that deceased was not engaged in interstate commerce.
Brinsko's Estate v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.)......
Coverage. Where deceased was employed on various jobs and was paid the
cost of the work plus 10 per cent, and for his own time when he
worked, etc., he was an independent contractor and his widow was not
entitled to compensation.
Co. et al. (Mich.)......
Coverage. Where deceased entered employment of defendant six weeks be-
fore act went into effect he was, nevertheless, subject to act. Drtina
et al. v. Charles Tea Co. (II.).
Coverage. Employer was contractor and had contract for construction work
on main and second floors of garage, but had no possession of basement
and made no use of it. During noon hour, deceased and other workmen
went to boiler room in basement to eat their dinner, and, after being
away from premises, decedent returned to boiler room to await time
for going to work and was killed by boiler exploding-accident was not
one arising out of and in course of employment. Manor vs. Pennington
In re Etna Life Ins. Co. (N. Y.).......
Coverage. Employees in shops of railroad company were not engaged in
interstate commerce in pushing carload of lumber about shops to place
where it is to be unloaded, which was loaded at a point in this state
and hauled to shops, its point of destination likewise in this state,
although lumber was intended for use in building and repairing cars
thereafter to be used, in part, in carrying interstate traffic-section
52 of the act excepts employers who are engaged in both interstate and
intrastate commerce and such of their employees as are also engaged
in both and whose employment is wholly within the state and constitutes
them distinct and separate classes and provides a different method where-
by they may obtain benefits of the act. Barnett vs. Coal & Coke Ry.
Co. (W. Va.)..
Coverage. Evidence did not warrant finding that son of man employed to
cut wood by cord, who was helping his father, was an employee within
meaning of Act. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland et al. vs. Brush
et al. (Cal.).
Coverage. In determining whether employee of interstate carrier is entitled
to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Law, the true test is
wether his work was a part of the interstate commerce of the
carrier-plumber, employed in maintenance of ways department of in-
terstate carrier, engaged in repairing pipes in station and killed by train
while crossing tracks, entitled to no compensation under Workmen's
Compensation Law, since he was engaged in interstate commerce. Voll-
mers vs. New York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.).....
Coverage.-Laws 1916, c. 622, amending, brings under Act employee in service
of employer carrying on a hazardous employment, even though such
employee is not engaged in a hazardous employment. Dose vs. Moehle
Lithographic Co. et al. (N. Y.)......
Carleton V. Foundry & Machine Products
Coverage. One contracting to paint house for lump sum was not by reason
of such employment agent of employer to hire such labor as he might see
fit and one hired by him was not employee of such contractor's em-
ployer within the meaning of the act. Kackel vs. Serviss-In re Em-
ployers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited (N. Y.)....
Coverage. One employed to cut wood by cord and posts at fixed sum with
no agreement as to hours or method, was an independent contractor,
and son helping him for half that his father received for work was not
an employee within the meaning of the act. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland et al. vs. Brush et al. (Cal.)..
Coverage. "On, in, or about" factory or establishment does not authorize
recovery against owner of packing house on account of injuries received
by truck driver while engaged in delivering meat to customers. The
term "plant" is quite different from "factory." Hicks vs. Swift & Co.
(Kansas)
Coverage. Plaintiff, though he had not been in defendant's Employ for 30
days at time of accident had not given notice that he elected not to
be subject to provision of the act-Section 3494-7 subd. 2, declares that
term "employee" shall include every person in service of another under
any contract of hire including minors who are legally permitted to work
-minor working under child labor permit and was subject to provisions
of act-though plaintiff was required to run elevator, a prohibited em-
ployment, he was nevertheless subject to the act, which provides for
treble the amount otherwise recoverable. Lutz vs. Wilmanns Bros. Co.
(Wis.)
Coverage.-Proceeding for compensation for death of brakeman, killed at
the time two cars of milk, then engaged in intrastate commerce, were
being coupled, held, that Commission was justified in finding there was
no violation of federal Appliance Act and no negligence of employer.
That Industrial Commission was unable to say what was the cause of
death was immaterial, so long as appliances, equipment and cars were
within the law. Zimmerman vs. New York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.)....
Coverage. The Act making no specific provisions as to period during which
compensation should be allowed for injury to little finger or ring finger,
nor for injury to both in combination, it was board's duty to fix com-
pensation in its discretion under general provision of section 31. Ken-
wood Bridge Co. vs. Stanley (Ind.).
Coverage. Where employer pays wages of injured employees for number of
weeks and subsequently in part, holding a policy of insurance, taken out
with express reference to Burke-Roberts Employers' Liability Act obtains
receipts showing such payments as for wages to which employee was
entitled under Workmen's Compensation Act, upon which it obtains
reimbursement from the insurance company, the question whether the
injury of the employee entitles him to compensation under the act will
Summers vs. Woodward, Wight & Co., Ltd.
be regarded as eliminated.
(La.)
Coverage. Whether there is a contract of employment, within the act,
is a question of law, depending upon established facts and the parties
may not make a contract which the law says is not a contract. Kackel
et al. VS. Serviss In rẻ Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited
(N. Y.)
Coverage. Evidence warranted commission in finding that deceased was in
contractor's employ at time of injury. Georgia Casualty Co. et al. v.
Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.).
Coverage. Where injured employee could have sued employer in admiralty
to recover damages for injuries state compensation law has no applica-
tion-Workmen's Compensation Act is not a statute giving redress for
torts but one providing compensation to injured employee for injuries
resulting from either tort or contract. Veasey v. Peters et al. (La.).... 781
Coverage. While constructing a sewer, city is not engaged in an enterprise
involving any gain or profit and does not come within the Compensa-
tion Act. Redfern v. Eby et al. (Kansas.).
Coverage. Where employer concedes that servant was injured by accident-
in slight measure at least servant is entitled to recover damages for
whatever injury he actually suffered. Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co.
V. Davidovich (Ariz.).
Coverage. Janitor in defendant's office building who lived in house rented
from defendant at some distance from office and was killed by electric
wire falling across lawn just as he was going to work and was carrying
basket of laundry for wife who conducted restaurant for defendant in
its building was not killed on the premises or in plant or in course of
employment. Murphy v. Ludlum Steel Co. (N. Y.)...
1122
Coverage. Employee whose sole duty was to feed bundles into combined
thresher and cleaner was neither engaged in the hazardous employment
of operating vehicle-the thresher and cleaner mounted on axles and
wheels while being drawn from farm to farm, would be a vehicle within
the act, but could not be so considered while being used as stationary
machinery. Vincent vs. Taylor Bros. In re London Guarantee & Acci-
dent Co. (N. Y.).
Defenses. Where board required employer, if denying liability, to file such
denial in writing with specifications including circumstances upon which
he relies as a defense, grounds of defense not so specified cannot be
considered. Roach. v. Kelsey Wheel Co. et al. (Mich.)..
.....1025
Denial of Liability.-Where servant made claim and employer was notified
in same month wrote board denying liability and board, still in the
same month, wrote servant advising him of denial, though proceedings
were perhaps somewhat informal, employer did not admit liability in
legal effect by failure to file and serve on servant written denial thereof.
Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.).
Denial of Liability.-Employer, if denying liability, has burden of showing
that accident did not so occur. Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish &
Co. (Mich.)..
...1055
Dependent. Deceased having left minor daughter, his sister claiming com-
pensation is not next of kin, and can have no claim, unless she was
a member of his family, partly dependent upon him for support-de-
cedent's sister and her minor son, who lived with him in house formerly
owned by mother of brother and sister, who died intestate, constituted
family within the meaning of the act-deceased, however, was not head
of family of which his sister and her son were members. In re Murphy
In re London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited (Mass.)
Dependent. In view of Section 38, specifying who shall be conclusively pre-
sumed to be dependent, but making no provision for sisters and nieces,
that must be determined in accordance with the fact at the time of
injury. In re Lanman et al. (Ind.).
Dependent.-Where intestate sent home money every alternate week and
wife maintained their former home, board was justified in finding they
were living together. Where wife was living with husband at time of
death and had no other means of support than the money he gave her,
she. was as a matter of law totally dependent. Muncie Foundry &
Machine Co. v. Coffee (Ind.)
Dependent.-Question of dependency of mother on married son was to be de-
termined as of time of his death without regard to subsequent condition
of family or contribution of son before marriage. Mere gifts to mother
do not constitute dependency-where a woman's husband has no one
else dependent on him and is capable of earning more than $21 a week
and is employed with a fair degree of regularity, presumption is that
she is not dependent upon a married son for support-evidence of con-
|