by Compensation Act, to which she was unable to give assent-misstatement by girl of age in order to secure employment is no defense to employer, sued for injury to her, and claiming only remedy is under Workmen's Compensation Act, despite illegality of employment; prohibition against employment of child under 14 being absolute. Sechlich v. Harris-Emery Co. (Iowa)...

126

Held that the charge adopted was proper test of vice-principalship and a new trial should not have been granted because of alleged error in charge. Gutmann v. Anderson (Minn.). 765 Unless employer has age and employment certificate provided for by Statute, minor between ages of 14 and 16 is not working at an age legally permitted under laws of state-where employer who has received from proper school committee and has in his possession a certificate in form substantially as required by law, he is not required to investigate accuracy, but is entitled to rely upon it as rendering employment of child named as being legally permitted and said child is sui juris as an employee. Taglinette v. Sydney Worsted Co. (R. I.)....

§ 367.

662

75

24

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. Where contract provided that buyer of timber should reimburse seller for wages paid scalers, not to exceed $50 per month each, scaler employed by and who worked under direction of seller at salary of $70 per month, was not employee of buyer within act. Kirby Lumber Co. v. McGilberry et al. (Tex.) Principal test as to whether one is employee or independent contractor lles in degree of control retained and exercised by person for whom work is being done-where employer of drainage district supervised ditch-cleaning operation as to results only, while person injured operated his own machinery, etc., he was an independent contractor. Meredosia Levee & Drainage Dist. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.).. Contract providing for digging tunnel for express consideration, which gave party desiring tunnel dug right to withhold 20 per centum of compen sation until work was completed, but contained no reservation of control of work more than necessary to insure its producing results provided for, did not create relation of master and servant-mere fact that independent contractor followed directions of owner of mine regarding work of digging tunnel did not change relation of master and servant. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (Colo.).. 95 Painter agreeing to paint three smokestacks for corporation was independent contractor where he had absolute control of himself and helper as to time when he was to begin work and as to where he should commence, unhampered by directions from corporation and not subject to its discharge in relation of employer and employee, employer had control and direction, not only of work and its performance and results, but of its details and methods and may discharge employee disobeying such control that independent contractor is directed by corporation during performance of work does not affect his status as such-that he was furnished paint and helper by corporation does not affect his status. Litts et al. v. Risley Lumber Co. et al. (N. Y.)............. 170

Claimant for compensation for injuries from town, who engaged in business of stable keeping, teaming and jobbing, let to town for work on roads, cart, horses and himself for undivided price of $6. per day, held "independent contractor." Winslow's Case. In re Town of Mansfield (Mass.). 741 Driver of team hired out by owner, his general employer, to work for another, remains in employ of general employer so far as concerns management and care of horses-owner of teams and horses who let them with drivers at hourly rate, paying drivers and driving team himself, who was injured in management of horses of his team, not entitled to compensation from company or insurer. Centrello's Case. In re J. K. Ryan Co. In re Travelers' Ins. Co. (Mass.)

740

One employed to remove trees preparatory to grading street to be paid in lump sum, he furnishing his own tools, controlling his own time, etc., he was a "contractor." Storm v. Thompson (Ia.).. 470 Where person lets out work to another, and contractee reserves control over work of workmen, method of work, etc., relation of contractor and contractee exists and not that of master and servant. Smith v. State Workmen's Ins. Fund (Pa.).

374 Compensation Act must be presumed to have used the word "contractor" in sense it is commonly employed, and in which it has been defined by the courts. Storm v. Thompson (la.). 470

# 369.

21

INJURIES OCCURRING IN FOREIGN STATE. Board obtained jurisdiction by application of wife alleging employment of husband and injury causing death suffered in course of employment, although injury occurred while employee was outside of state. Friedman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.) .......... Compensation Act of Illinois does not authorize compensation for death of person by drowning in Ohio River while at work on occasion attached to river bed outside of state boundary. Union Bridge & Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).. 690 Where native of New York, employed by New York corporation met death while working for corporation in New Jersey, held. New York act was applicable, it not appearing that it was contemplated that sole activities

should be in New Jersey. Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co. et al. (N. Y.)

That Compensation Act abolishes certain common-law defenses "within the state" and that the act is made applicable to minors legally employed under laws of this state does not show intention to limit act to injuries within the state-act is part of every contract and in case of injury to employee rights and liabilities must be determined in accordance with its provisions whether injury occurs within or without the state. Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co. et al. (Wis.)..

26

18

To authorize compensation it is not necessary that injury be one which ought to have been foreseen or expected, but it must be one which, after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in nature of employment. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.)... Injury occurs in course of employment when within period of employment, at place where employee may reasonably be and while reasonably fulfilling duties of employment. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.) Employee so drunk and helpless that he can no longer follow his employment is not engaged therein and injury received while in such condition does not arise out of employment. Lefens et al. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.) Plaintff thrown from runway between two buildings was injured in course of employment. Gadberry v. Hutchinson Egg Case Filler Co. (Kan.).... 473 In order that injury may arise out of employment it must be received while workman is doing duty he is employed to perform and also as natural incident of work flowing therefrom as natural consequence and directly connected therewith. Di Salvio v. Menihan Co. et al. (N. Y.)... Employee, who was in shop in which he worked all ready for day's work at time of accident was injured within course of employment. Rish v. Iowa Portland Cement Co. (Ia.)....

Injury arising out of employment includes injuries to employees whose servces are being performed about premises of employer and at places where employer's business required their presence. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Totzke et al. (Ind.).

$372.

CAUSE OF INJURY IN GENERAL. Since under statute, compensation is given only for such injuries as are incidental to and grow out of employment, it does not extend to injuries from exposure to hazard which is not peculiar to industry or substantially increased by nature of services. Ellingson Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.)..

Where lumberjack by mistake in orders worked at wrong place and on finding mistake went to proper place and worked so much harder than usual in preparing for next day's drive that his feet perspired and were consequently frozen, he received injury proximately caused by accident arising out of and in course of employment within statute. Ellingson Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. "Personal injury" includes not merely break in some part of body or some wound, but the consequence or disability resulting thereform, such as depressed mental or nervous condition. Kingan & Co., Limited v. Ossam (Ind.) Injury directly and naturally resulting in risk reasonably incident to employment arises out of employment. Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. (Kans.)

§ 373. PARTICULAR CAUSES OF INJURY. Where claimant, culling barrel staves for barrel raiser, was assulted by employee, who was culling staves for another barrel raiser, because of dispute in regard to one taking staves from rack of other, he suffered accidental injury in course of employment. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).......

246

491

463

448

215

215

276

713

26

144

.... 215

Where beam tender of tire fabric company, whose business it was to see that yarn was wound around revolving cylinder, was killed when he fell on machine, accident arose out of employment. Dow's Case. In re American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.)... Injury by freezing is not peculiar to work of lumberjack, so that, in absence of peculiar circumstances, compensation cannot be allowed therefor. Ellingson Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.) Where sunstroke paralyzed definite portion of employee's brain so that it no longer discharged its proper functions, and death shortly resulted in accordance with ordinary process of such disturbance of brain, employee sustained "personal injury" within the act-death from sunstroke held compensable injury under act-it clearly appearing that employee was stricken while doing what he was employed to do. injury arose "out of and in the course of employment. Ahern v. Spier et al. (Conn.). 221 Where head waiter of hotel was killed, while in hotel eating lunch under contract of employment, by waiter whom he had discharged in interests of hotel and acting under its authority, death was in course of employment. Cranney's Case. In re Hotel Essex. In re Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited (Mass.).

641

584

629

629

499

Where coal hauler, engaged on hot day in shoveling coal at place where there was no shade, was stricken with heat or sunstroke and later died, injury was one arising out of employment. Cunningham v. Donovan et al. (Conn.) Attempt to start fire by use of kereosene which he supposed was signal oll did not thereby add to his employment any peril outside thereof, and injury arose out of employment. Benson v. Bush (Kansas).. Attempt to start fire by use of kerosene which he supposed was signal oid did not thereby add to his employment any peril outside thereof. Benson v. Bush (Kans.).. Where cap, found by chauffeur in coal pile on dock 200 feet from garage, around which he was working, exploded in chauffeur's attempt to remove attached wire, injuring fellow chauffeur passing by in discharge of duties, fellow chauffeur's injury was result of accident arising out of employment. Laurino v. Donovan et al. (N. Y)......... Employer is liable for injury sustained by employee from electric shock caused by mischievous prank of fellow workmen, when shown that perpetration of such pranks had become custom-person designated by master to direct work of employees is a "foreman," however limited in other respects his authority may be and knowledge of foreman was knowledge of master. White v. Kansas City Stockyards Co. (Kansas).... Where workman employed in logging camp was required to sleep in bunk furnished by employer and was injured by straw falling from upper bunk lodging in his throat, injury was incidental to employment. Holt Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. 549 374. INJURY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH. Employee's fall upon machine was proximate cause of death, cause of fall being remote cause only. Dow's Case-In re American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.)

That employee was not exposed to sunstroke in greater degree than others in same employment and than many other out-of-door workers is immaterial Ahern v. Spier et al. (Conn.).

476

144

221

Basis of recovery under act is that injury be proximately caused by accident. Frint Motorcar Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. 399

It being custom that where deceased, sent to procure samples could not finish his inspection and return to plant before 6 P. M., he would bring samples with him in the morning, injuries received while going home after 7:15 P. M., at which time he left plant of another company after procuring samples did not arise out of and in course of employment, whether or not he was carrying samples when injured. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (III.)..

(1). In general.

18

102

Amendment defining "employee" as one in hazardous occupation, does not bring workman injured out of course of employment within Act, in view of section 7, defining injury as one arising out of and in course of employment. Pierson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (N. Y.).. 186 Where deceased was expected to eat lunch and spend noon hour at factory and to operate elevator when occasion demanded, and he was found crushed between elevator and gate during noon hour, employer was liable for compensation when plant was one included within act in absence of showing suicide. Humphrey et al. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..... Where superintendent of apartment house was injured by assault committed upon him by tenant of building as result of quarrel arising from insults offered tenant's wife, injury did not occur in line of claimant's duty, assaults being accidents "arising out of employment" only when employee is engaged in master's business. Muller v. H. & A. Cohen, Inc., et al. (N. Y.) 649. There was evidence that plaintiff, seventeen year old girl, paid by hour, was injured during half hour's intermission at noon while, although at liberty to leave premises, she remained there and after eating her lunch engaged with fellow employes, in accordance with custom known to and approved by employer, in riding truck, finding that accident occured in course of employment was justified. Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. (Kan.). 712 Where employee, while driving automobile with which he was not familiar and which was owned by fellow employee who accompanied him on business for his employer, was killed in collision with electric car, no injunction being laid upon them by their employer as to who should operate machine or what kind should be used, he was acting within course of employment. Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)

That workman at time he receives injury is acting in violation of directions does not preclude injury from arising out of employment. Peru Basket Co. v. Kuntz (Ind.)..

577

627

In proceedings for death of waiter, shot while approaching scuffle between another waiter and armed customer, fact that it was waiter's duty to keep order sufficient to sustain award, Stevens et al. v. Industrial Accident Commissin of California et al. (Cal.).. 572 Servant upon discovering that no chute with which to unload coal had been placed on wagon, went to nearby saloon and telephoned to master's of

fice and who was struck by passing automobile while in act of mounting his wagon on his return, injured in course of employment. Consumers' Co. v. Ceislik (Ind.). . .

Street flushing motor truck operator who fell in trying to pick up wrench from footboard while manipulating lever was injured in course of employment, though at time of injury one not employee was running truck by his permission. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited of London, Eng., et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal).. Had claimant suspended work during working hours to go to cloakroom or wash room and had been injured she could have had an award-it was enough that employee performing act ordinarily incident to working day, though directly beneficial to herself-acquiescence of employer in use of boiler room for employees to heat drinks for lunch sufficient to abrogate rule promulgated long previously prohibiting such use-employee who while on way to floor above slipped and fell at foot of staircase was injured in course of her employment. Etherton v. Johnstown Knitting Mills Co. et al. (N. Y.)... Employee engaged in marking shoe soles crossed room to bid good-by to fellow employee who had been drafted and while leaning on unguarded cogwheel caught his fingers accident did not arise out of employment. Di Salvio v. Menihan Co. et al. (N. Y.)...

That machinist disobeyed master's orders requiring him to remain in pit to repair cars which were racing and in running to car to assist in its repair was run over and killed by another car, does not put accident outside scope of employment. Frint Motorcar Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al (Wis.).

Where chauffeur employed to drive passenger to certain town reached destination ahead of time and at his suggestion drove passenger around for mutual pleasure and on such pleasure trip was shot by passenger, who suddently became insane, death did not arise out of employment. Central Garage of La Salle v. Industrial Commission et al. (III.)... Relation of master and servant may extend beyond hours servant is actually required to labor and in some instances to places other than premises where servant is employed-where contract of employment provided that servant should sleep on premises and in bunk furnished by master it was within course of employment for servant to remain upon premises and use bunk furnished for him. Holt Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.)...

620

421

361

491

399

428

.... 549

(2). Injury received while going to or from work. Injury to employee of plumber, engaged in making private connections with city sewers, arises out of employment, where on way to work, at employer's direction, he gets on his truck to get pipe left over at other job and from pipeyard and truck is struck by street car. Scully v. Industrial Commission of Illinois (Ill.)..

......

30

78

115

154

Where miner, going to get tools in part of mine where he was told not to go, died from obnoxious gases, he died as result of accident occurring in course of employment. Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co. (Pa.). Where it is necessary that employee travel public streets in doing work, his place of work includes such public streets as he is required to traverse while doing work-where flour salesman was injured by automobile while crossing street on way to board car to return from home from which it was customary for him to telephone orders for goods to employer, injury arose out of and in course of employment. Bachman V. Waterman (Ind.) Where workman has completed day's work and has left premises and not then engaged in performing any service of employment and meets with accident, he is not within Act. Erickson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.-O'Malley v. Same (Minn.). Respondent's husband resided at Bismark, N. D. He was in employ of relator, whose principal place of business was at Minneapolis, He received salary and traveling expenses, excepting board while at home. His duties to solicit shipment of grain from west of Missouri river to reiator for sale on commission. While on way home from field of labor on Sunday morning came to his death by accidental drowning, while at-. tempting to cross Missouri in rowboat. Held that his dependents are entitled to recover compensation under Minnesota Act. State ex rel. McCarthy Bros. Co. v. District Court of Hennepin County et al (Minn.).. 161 Where employee, five minutes after quitting time, after washing, put on coat and hat, and then turned back to look about working room for companions and in doing so put his head into elevator shaft and was killed by descending elevator, accident did not arise out of and in course of employment. Urban v. Topping Bros. et al. (N. Y.). Elevated railway guard having two hours off, who stayed on train to ride to office for pay and thence to dentist, injured in collision, was not within Act and could recover in civil action. Pierson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (N. Y.).......

Injury and death of tobacco plantation workers after they had entered into contract of employment, while being driven to place of work in automobile furnished by employer pursuant to employment contract. arose in course of and out of employment. Scalia v. American Sumatra Tobacco Co. et al. Sala v. Same (Conn.)..

Mechanical engineer, employed on salary with no fixed hours of service, who had been directed to go to another city for information for use in employer's business, and who, on his return after 11:30 P. M., and while

184

187

230

going from station to home before reporting was killed by automobile. was injured in course of employment. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co. et al. (Pa.) Where engineer during vacation, but while in pay of and subject to employer's call, at request of superintendent went to inspect a pumping station to increase his efficiency as employee and was injured in automobile accident, widow entitled to damages for death as injury by injury in course of his employment. Messer v. Manufacturers' Light & Heat Co. et al. (Pa.). Where deceased servant, by crossing bridge under construction to get lunch was violating instruction of employer, injury did not arise out of employment. H. W. Nelson R. Const. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.. (III.)

786

791

605

495

Car inspector on way home to dinner fell from trestle about half a mile from place where he stopped work but within defendant's railroad yards, finding that accident arose out of employment was unwarranted. McInerney v. Buffalo & S. R. Corporation (N, Y.)....... Injuries and death from fall sustained by woman store employee tripping when about to pass through door into store of employer in coming to work, held to have arisen out of employment. Hallett's Case (Mass.).... 481 Where electrician was injured from explosion of dynamite cap while striking match to light cigarette while in shop approaching his work bench to start day's work, injuries arose out of employment, though use of caps was confined to different building and prohibited in shop. Rish v. lowa Portland Cement Co. (Iowa)....

463

Where employee affected with disease receives personal injury under circumstances entitling him to compensation had no disease been involved, and such disease is materially hastened to final culmination by injury, award may be had if injury resulted from accident-employee afflicted with hernia lifted bale of wire causing intestine to protrude into existing hernial sac, necessitating operation to save life he was entitled to compensation. Puritan Bed Spring Co. v. Wolfe (Ind.)...... 39

$380. — WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF EMPLOYEE IN GENERAL. Claimant's refusal to allow amputation of finger was not unreasonable or willful misconduct prejudicing additional compensation, where his physi clan stated that finger could be saved. Enterprise Fence & Foundry Co. v. Majors (Ind.)... 113 Claimant's failure to consult physician until two weeks after injury held not to justify denial of all compensation, his conduct not amounting to "willful or serious misconduct" which would possibly justify such denial under one section of statute. Rainey v. Tunnel Coal Co. et al. (Conn). That lineman killed by contact with wire was guilty of contributory negligence, or of an infraction of certain rules of employer which were enforced with little or no diligence, would not constitute "willful misconduct." Indianapolis Light & Heat Co. v. Fitzwater (Ind.).. Death of painter while painting inside of tank car without using respirator because one furnished was defective, held not due to willful misconduct in refusing to use safety appliance.. General American Tank Car Corporation v. Borchardt (Ind.)....

Where employee on master's business was killed in collision with electric car, while driving an automobile, his unfamiliarity with that particular kind of machine constituted negligence only on his part. Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.).... Where deceased workman was tapping bolt in sand machine when he fell into machine and was killed, held though he violated instructions, accident cannot de deemed one which did not arise out of employment so

227

284

700

577

as to preclude award. National Car Coupler Co. v. Marr et al. (Ind.).. 456

Though injury arose out of employment, there can be no award where injury and death were due to intoxication. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.. v. Totzke et al. (Ind.). . 448

Settlement receipt neither filed nor approved by Board does not prevent ac311 tion by board. Adams v. W. E. Wood Co. et al. (Mich.).. Where watchman was killed while acting at crossing for both intrastate and interstate carrier, wife executed written release to interstate carrier in consideration of certain amount, release, in so far as any claim under state act was concerned, was invalid as against intrastate carrier, where it did not provide for full compensation in accordance with provisions of act. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.)

682

Though receipt and release given at time servant made settlement for injuries did not mention Compensation Act, as employer was operating under act, it must be deemed that settlement was made under act. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).. 435