Election.-Where master had not elected to come under Workmen's Com- pensation Act, the common-law defenses were foreclosed to him so that where servant was injured by falling down stairway, allegations of answer that plaintiff was familiar with stairway, knew it was usually lighted, etc., come within defenses of assumption of risk and contribu- tory negligence. Wulff v. Bossler (Mich.). Election.-Relator's husband a resident of North Dakota entered into con- tract of employment with Minnesota corporation and contemplated soliciting business in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere, auto- mobile furnished him for use in his work accidentally overturned at point in North Dakota and he was killed, Minnesota act is applicable. State ex rel. Chambers et al. v. District Court, Hennepin County, et al. (Minn.) Election.-Townships if engaged in any hazardous occupation enumerated in paragraph b of section 3. are conclusively presumed to have elected to provide and pay compensation under the act, unless they have elected to the contrary. McLaughlin, Commissioner of Highways v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.) Election.-Under the act providing for election between remedies when employee is injured or killed by negligence of another not in same em- ploy and for subrogation if compensation is paid, a widow with de- pendent child may for herself and child make an election-statute as amended was merely clarified and not substantially altered, by providing for election by minors or their parents or guardians as the commission determines. Hanke v. New York Consol. R. Co. (N. Y.). Election. That defendant coal corporation had elected not to pay compen- sation under the act would deprive it of certain defenses, but would not relieve plaintiff employee from proving negligence. Wendzinski v. Madison Coal Corp. et al. (III.) . . . Election. Though defendant master had elected to come under the act it was not applicable to plaintiff and he might, despite its provisions, re- cover in action at law for injuries sustained. Roszek v.. Bauerle & Stark Co. (Ill.)..
Election.-To prove that master has elected not to be bound by act servant must not only show that master has so notfiled board but also that plain- tiff had received copy thereof, or copy posted where he was employed. Beveridge v. Illinois Fuel Co. (III.).
Election of Remedies.-Employee injured by third party may proceed against his employer under Workmen's Compensation Act or pursue his common- law rights against third party. The act requiring employee to assign cause of action against third party upon electing to seek compensation, assignment is effective upon election being made and before award. Sabatino v. Thomas Crimmins Const. Co. (N. Y.)
Employee.-The foreman being engaged in a hazardous occupation was an "employee". Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Travelers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.) Employee.-Journeyman paper hanger, hired by foreman of department store's wall paper department, and directed by him whenever such work was required to go to purchaser's residence and hang paper was entitled to recover compensation for injuries in course of employment though his name did not appear on payroll-decisive test as to employment is whether claimed employer retained authority to direct or control the work or gave it to claimant. In re McAllister (Mass.).. Employee.-Employees intended to become beneficiaries are, in a general way those whose remuneration is popularly designated as wages, instead of salary, whose compensation for service is not munificent, who may reasonably be presumed to be dependent on wages for sustenance of themselves and families and whose wives and children may reasonably be presumed to be dependent on them for support-that one is president or other executive officer of corporation that employs him is not, standing alone, sufficient to eliminate him from those regarded as "employees" within the act-officer of small corporation may serve both as officer and workman under circumstances making him an "employee." In re Raynes (Ind.) Employee.-Foreman had full authority to hire whatever help he needed and did hire men admitted to be employees of his employer, and also hired men and teams for lump sum and on at least one occasion hired a team separately and also furnished his own team on some occasions and injured person at time of injury was driving foreman's team. Fore- man directed drivers to same extent as other employees and intended to engage injured person as employee of his employer. Foreman made no profit on injured person's services as driver, the injured person being paid usual wages for driving and foreman retaining the amount usually paid for team. Held, injured person was employee of general employer and not employee of foreman, the contention that foreman was contractor being without merit. Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com- mission of California et al. (Cal.)
Employee. Under act which declares "employee" to be synonymous with servant to include all natural persons, only such employers are made liable as are themselves engaged in regular business; married women living with husband in house owned by her, who had been engaged in remodeling and enlarging house was not engaged in any "business." Marsh vs. Groner (Pa.)
Employee.-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 employer within the meaning of the act. Kackel et al. vs. Serviss (N. Y.) Employee.-Plaintiff, though he had not been in defendant's employ for thirty days at time of accident had not given notice that he elected not to be subject to provisions 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 was working under child labor permit and was subject to provisions of act-though plaintiff was required to run elevator, a pro- hibited employment, he was nevertheless subject to the act, which pro- vides for treble the amount otherwise recoverable. Lutz vs. Wilmanns Bros. Co. (Wis.).. Employee.
No relation of employer and employee existing between city and election board judge at municipal election. City of Los Angeles v. State Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.) . . . . . 298 Employee.-Under statute defining employee and employer, employee in coal or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employment is not entitled to compensation on theory that it was in connection with operation of vehicle because Wood would ultimaaely be hauled by such vehicle. Casterline v. Gillen. In re Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (N. Y.) Employee. One whose duties were to assist in manufacture and assembling of machinery was required to travel from place to place was "traveling employee" entitled to compensation for injuries sustained on public high- way while traveling in course of employment. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.).... 743 Employee.-Facts being undisputed, the question whether painter and decorator under contract with hotel company was regular employee or independent contractor was one of law. Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co. et al. (Mich.)..
Employee. In absence of special agreement "partner" is not an employee. Cooper v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California et al. (Cal.)........ 899
Employers. It must be presumed there was an implied contract made to do the work which was not tainted with such fatal invalidity as to prevent the subcontractor from recovering of the general employer of the work: though the deceased servant did work for a subcontractor under a void contract made on Sunday by a subcontractor with principal contractor of general employer, servant was an employee of subcontractor within the statute and rights of employee are not affected by invalidity of the subcontract. Wausau Lumber Co. vs. Industrial Commission et al. (Wis.). 140 Employers.-A city, hiring horses, cart and driver from another to carry material from one place to another as its servants might direct, the driver being left to deal with the horses in his own way, it is not liable for such servant's death under S. 1913, c. 807, making the Workmen's Compensation Act applicable to employees in municipalities. In re Clancy (Mass) Employers. Evidence sufficient to warrant finding that employers were jointly engaged in business of rock crushing. Gray et al. vs. Industrial Com- mission et al. (Cal.)....
Employer. The town represented by its superintendent of highways was an "employer." Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Travelers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.) Employers.-Window cleaner not discharged though told not to work when unable and unpaid for some work done, relation of master and servant obtained. Chicago Cleaning Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (III.). Employer. Under statute defining employee and employer, employee in coal or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employment is not entitled to compensation on theory that it was in connection 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.).. 870 Employers. One who suffers injuries while working for partnership cannot maintain action against a member of partnership alone on the allegation that individual defendant was employer. Dupre v. Coleman (La.)... Employers.-Person who avails himself of use temporarily of services of servant regularly employed by anotheir person may be liable as master for acts of such servant, the test being whether in particular service the service is subject to direction and control of original master or person to whom he is lent hired. Arnett v. Hayes Wheel Co. et al. (Mich.).. ......1061
Employment, Casual.
(SEE CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.)
Erroneous Award.
(SEE AWARD.)
Existing Disease.
(SEE DISEASE.)
Extrahazardous Employment.
(SEE HAZARDOUS OCCUPATIONS.)
Foreign State.-Relator's husband, a resident of North Dakota, entered into contract of employment with Minnesota corporation and contem- plated soliciting business in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere; automobile furnished him for use in his work. accidentally overturned at point in North Dakota and he was killed, Minnesota act is applicable. State ex rel. Chambers et al. v. District Count, Hennepin County et al. (Minn.) Foreign State.-Though employee's original employment in New York had no specific reference to rendition of services in Connecticut, where his employer subsequently approached him with offer to go to Connecticut to work on a job on different terms from those on which he was first employed and he accepted offer and went to Connecticut and was fatally injured while working on such job, the Connecticut act applies as new contract was substituted for the old one. Banks v. Albert D. Howlett Co. et al. (Conn.)
Evidence.-Admission of hearsay testimony, if error, did not require re- versal of award, where evidence aside from hearsay, was sufficient to sus- tain award. Haskell & Barker Car. Co. vs. Brown et al. (Ind.)........ Evidence.-Evidence sufficient to justify board inferring that employee fell from frost-covered and unguarded trestle and that death was not caused by apoplexy; it is not necessary for widow to exclude possibility that husband's death might have been due to apoplectic shock, but merely to satisfy the board that fair preponderance of evidence that he received injury resulting in death arising out of employment. In re Uzzio (Mass.). 80 Evidence.-Finding of board is conclusive, if it has substantial support in evidence and may be reached not only by direct evidence, but by reasonable inferences, In re Uzzio (Mass.)
Evidence. Where employee stated that while he was sawing timbers, dirt or sawdust entered eye, that wind was strong, it might be fairly inferred that sawdust flew in his eye. Dickinson et al. vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)... Evidence. Dependents need not present proof entirely excluding possibility that decedent's death was due to diseased heart. Bucyrus Co. vs. Town- send et al. (Ind.)
Evidence. Exception to board's finding of fact not essential to present ques- tion of sufficiency of evidence to authorize finding on appeal in Appellate Court-conflicting evidence exclusive province of board to weigh such evidence, its conclusion being final and not subject to review. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.)
Evidence. Finding of fact by commission on conflicting evidence cannot be set aside. Gray et al. vs. Industrial Commission et al. (Cal.). Evidence. If no evidence showing relationship of master and servant or from which it may reasonably be inferred, Appellate Court may apply the law to such state of facts, despite contrary finding of board. Zietlow vs. Smock (Ind.) Evidence. If there is some evidence in support of injury, finding of Indus- trial Commission in favor of employee must be conclusive-sixteen year old boy injured while working in basement of retail store where goods for sale by his employer were temporarily stored was entitled to no com- pensation, the employer's principal business being sale and not storage. Walsh vs. F. W. Woolworth Co. (N. Y.).... Evidence.-Insufficient to support finding that employer had overcome pre- sumption of negligence arising from rejection of act. Mitchell vs. Des Moines Coal Co. (Iowa)
Evidence.-Insufficient to warrant finding that one who contracted to paint a a house was agent of the latter, with authority to hire such labor as he might see fit. Kackel VS. Serviss-In re Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited (N. Y.)... Evidence.-Sufficient to show Injury by accident to deceased arising out of employment and that it proximately caused his death. Bucyrus Co. vs. Townsend et al. (Ind.).
Evidence. Sufficient to show that lifting of can of paint caused bursting of blood vessel and death of an employee and was within the act. South- western Surety Ins. Co. vs. Owens et al. (Tex.).. Evidence. Sustained board's finding that injury resulted in loss of distal phalanx of little finger of right hand and in permanent total impairment of ring finger of right hand, that is, rendered it totally and permanently useless. Kenwood Bridge Co. vs. Stanley (Ind.).. Evidence. If there is any evidence to support finding, court will not weigh it or disturb finding-evidence sufficient to support finding that loss of claimant's eye was due to foreign substance entering eye while he was working in plant of employer. Riley V. Mason Motor Co. et al. • (Mich.) 406
Evidence. Fireman after returning from dinner, put on his working clothes and went to engine and roundhouse and later was found dead, evidence warranted award. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.).. Evidence. Supreme Court does not review findings of fact except to de- termine whether there is any evidence to support award-evidence need not b direct, but may be circumstantial. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.)... Evidence.-Sufficient to establish fact of accidental injury to employee warranting an award. Kinney v. Cadillac Motor Car. Co. (Mich.).. Evidence. Showed among other things that workman fell and
was hurt while working at a long inclined table, and while standing on a wet, inclined platform. Held that as against demurrer thereto evidence was sufficient to show that fall was accidental and that it arose out of em- ployment. Madey et al. v. Swift & Co. (Kan.). Evidence.-Failing to support verdict, judgment is reversed. Davis V. Fowler Packing Co. (Kan.).
Evidence. Insufficient to show that accident arose out of employment. gess et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.) Evidence.-Board not only passes on credibility of witnesses, but its in- ferences from circumstances and facts which it finds established. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.).. Evidence.-Erroneous admission of hearsay statements as to cause of ac- cident does not require a reversal where there was other legal basis for its conclusion. Kinney v. Cadillac Motor Car Co. (Mich.). Evidence. No warrant for finding that deceased contributed to father's sup- port by sending money to him in Austria, the sole basis of which is testimony by deceased's depositary that deceased had requested an advancement of money, saying it was intended for such purpose. Western Indemnity Co., Inc., et al. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.). 300
Evidence. Finding of facts by board on conflicting evidence is conclusive on Appellate Court. Underhill V. Central Hospital for the Insane (Ind.)
Evidence.-Commission not bound to take greater quantity of evidence as against lesser. Santa Anna Sugar Co. of Santa Ana et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)..
Evidence. Where Board proceeded on erroneous principles of law, award being reversed, widow should be allowed to introduce further evidence at new hearing and if she does so the insurer must have same privilege. In re Derinza-In re Pucci-In re Contractors' Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.)
Evidence. Where evidence as to nature and extent of injury to claimant's thumb is undisputed, finding of Commission that injury should be con- sidered as loss of entire thumb was legal conclusion subject to review by court-injury to thumb requiring amputation of distal phalanx and removal of slight chip of bone of proximal phalanx not equivalent to loss of whole thumb. Baron v. National Metal Spinning & Stamping Co., et al. (N. Y.).. 867
Evidence. To prove that master has elected not to be bound by act servant must not only show that master has so notified board but also that plaintiff had received copy thereof, or copy posted where he was em- ployed. Beveridge v. Illinois Fuel Co. (III.)....... Evidence.-Servant or master wishing to avoid act has burden of showing not only that board has been notified, but also that servant had received copy of such notice, or such notice had been posted. Barnes v. Illinois Fuel Co. (Ill.)...
Evidence. If conflicting, issue was for board to decide and its decision disposes of the case. Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.). Evidence. Conclusions of board will not be disturbed on appeal if there is competent evidence on which to base them-finding for compensation for death of elevator operator whose body was found in elevator pit that employee met his death in course of employment is suppored by evidence. Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co. (Mich.).
Evidence. Where carrier without objections allows establishment of material fact by hearsy evivdence, it cannot be heard to say on appeal that such evidence was incompetent. Hernon V. Holahan et al. In re Londong Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited (N. Y.)
Exceptions.
(SEE COVERAGE.)
Federal Judicial Code.-Amendment of October 6, 1917 saving to claimants the rights and remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Acts of any state is prospective and does not validate compensation action begun in a state court before its passage and which at time of such passage the state court had no jurisdiction to entertain. Coon v. Ken- nedy (N. J.)....
Fellow Servant.-Where employee loses his life in rescuing fellow employee while both are working in course of employment, relatives may re- cover workmen's compensation at least where deceased was not posi- tively prohibited by employer to undertake the rescue. General Ac- cident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Limited v. Evans et al. (Tex.)......1148
Fooling. Because skylarking of boys employed in plant came under ob- servation of president and superintendent, those officers were thereby charged with contemplating that the same thing might occur again; that is skylarking or horse-play, not that one boy might thereafter com- mit an atrocious assault upon another. Mountain Ice Co. v. McNeil et al. (N. J.).
Fooling. Where servant at work as riveter's helper was seized by another who held an air hose to his rectum while third turned on the air, in- juring him, such injury arose in the course of but not out of his em- ployment-injury was direct result of skylarking and not chargeable to master. Tarpper v. Weston-Mott Co. et al. (Mich.).... Fooling. Where there was evidence tending to support superior court's finding that injury was sustained while employee was engaged in throwing a bobbin and bobbin pounder back and forth it was not chargeable to master. Leclaire v. Glengarry Mills, Inc. (R. I.)...
Foreign Country.-Second mate on voyage from San Francisco to Canada and return fell within exclusive jurisdiction of United States courts. Tallac Co. vs. Pillsbury, et al., Industrial Acc. Commission (Cal.) . . . . . . . .
Foreign State.-Employee, resident of New Jersey, killed while in employ of New Jersey corporation, contract having been made in New Jersey, New Jersey law governs, although accident happened while employee was at work in state of New York. Barnhart vs. American Concrete Steel Co. (N. Y.) Foreign State.-Where person employed under New York contract was injured while performing services for his employer in state of New Jersey, his claim for compensation was under provisions of New York statute, rather than statute of New Jersey. Gilbert vs. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y.).
Fraud. Where insurance company sets up fraud in obtaining policy and commission ruled that it could not go into legality of policy, but on sub- sequent cases does go into legality, and is upheld by the courts, the com- pany cannot apply for rea hearing therein and have appeal for such re- hearing considered. Clemens vs. Clemens & Grell-In re Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. (N. Y.)....
Hazardous Occupations.-Building and repair of an ordinary dirt road is not an extrahazardous occupation within the act. Where township used explosives in dangerous quantities in making road it was engaged in one of the "extrahazardous occupations." McLaughlin, Commissioner of Highways, v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...
« AnteriorContinuar » |