Relator, who lets rig, team and teamster at stipulated monthly payments
out of which relator paid teamster weekly wages is responsible to team-
ster under act for accident occurring to teamster while so working for
one to whom he was let. State ex rel. D. N. Gilmore Co. v. District
Court of Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial Dist. (Minn.)
Building contractor, who employs less than five workmen part of time and
more than five remainder of time and who filed election to come under
act, is liable for injury to employee McMillan v. Ellis (Kan.).
Employer of less than five workmen, who has not affirmatively elected to
accept act, is not brought within it by reason of fact that he is drilling
oil or gas well. Hollingsworth v. Berry (Kan.)..
Where superintendent of defendant power company instructed wife to send
somebody to remedy trouble on line, plaintiff's decedent, whom she
sent, was employee of company. Heist v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light &
Power Co. (Wis.)
Nonassenting employer regularly employing more than five men is liable
for negligence. Thorne v. F. C. Johnson Co. (Me.)..
362.

CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.

697

679

676

728

684

Employment of 11 year old boy to work in store during summer vacation held
not "casual". McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Conn.) .. 525
363.

FARM LABORERS.

Claimant who hauled garbage to farm for feeding pigs held "farm laborer".
State Indus. Comm. v. Wiseman (N. Y.)

City policeman, "officer appointed for the regular term," is not included
in class of "workmen" and "employe" entitled to compensation from
city under act. -word "regular" in act defining those under it and means
"conformable to law." Rooney v. City of Omaha. (Neb.)
Where insurance carrier intended that policy should cover city firemen,
their salaries being considered in fixing premium received, and insurer
prepared report of firemen's death and also agreement between city
and firemen's dependents, approved by board and paid, fireman was em-
ployee of city in so far as insurer was concerned. Frankfort Gen.
Ins. Co. V. Conquitt (Ind.)

City fireman, until whose death it could not be determined that he would
not leave widow or minor children, beneficiaries, or heirs to whom pen-
sion would be payable from fund, held not "employee under act, though
he died leaving no one surviving entitled to pension. City of Chicago
v. Indus. Comm. (Ill.)

...........

481

69

25

142

144

76

Since city is engaged in work some of which is classed as hazardous and
some as non-hazardous, there is no presumption that injured employe
was not under act. O'Brien v. Chicago City Ry. Co. (Ill.)
365.
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Employee working as lineman on interstate railroad anchor bridge was
employed on instrumentality of interstate commerce and liability for
death depends on federal law so that employe's contributory negligence
does not bar recovery. Baker v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (N. Y.)
Judgment affirming award under state act for death of trainman must be
reversed if he was employed in interstate commerce when accident oc-
curred Trainman was employed in interstate commerce if any cars in
his train contained interstate freight and although cars were not so
billed when under his charge. Phila. & R. Ry. Co. v. Hancock. (U. S.) 247
Employee is not entitled to compensation for injuries received while clean-
ing and painting bridges on line of railroad engaged in interstate com-
merce although working for independent contractor and not directly for
railroad. Luby v. Indus. Ins. Comm. of Wash. (Wash.)
(1).

....

Where laborer ordered to appear before physician for physical examination
did not appear at designated time and place but voluntarily appeared
next evening at another town and was drowned on returning across
river, death was not due to accident in course of employment. Wilson
v. H. C. Frick Coke Co. (Pa.)

§ 366.

$367.

-

MINORS.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Where orginal contractor contracted for performance of sub-contractor and
where latter contracted for performance of same work with second sub-
contractor, original contractor was liable for compensation for death of
laborer hired by second subcontractor. Qualp v. James Stewart Co. Inc.
(Penn.)
One contractor is not liable for death of employe of another contractor
working on same premises in furtherance of owner's general plan.
Qualp v. James Stewart Co. Inc. (Penn.)

603

502

99

99

Railroad servant injured while repairing track, instrumentality in inter-
state commerce had right of recovery under federal act rather than state
act. Kalashian v. Hines, Director Gen. R. R. (Wis.)
One hired to do painting and paper hanging by the hour, whose materials
were furnished, heid "servant", not independent contractor. Board of
Com'rs of Greene County v. Shertzer. (Ind.)
Claimant who hauled garbage in own truck held an independent contrac-
tor. State Indus. Comm. v. Wiseman (N. Y.)
One hired to shovel coal out of car into bin, tools being furnished by em-
ployer, is not "independent contractor". Indiana Window Glass Co. V.
Mauck

$368.

(Ind.) ......

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
FORMED IN FOREIGN STATE.

.240

310

481

657

MADE OR TO BE PER-

Where it appears that death occurred and all services were rendered in
another state where contract of employment was made and to be per-
formed, exclusive remedy is under act of that state. Prdich. v. New
York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.)...........

€ 369.
INJURIES OCCURRING IN FOREIGN STATE.
Employer of longshoreman being foreign corporation and having been doing
business in foreign state where accident happened, in absence of any-
thing to show longshoreman has any remedy under compensation act of
any state, no such defense is available to employer when sued for in-
juries. Simpson v. Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. Inc. (N. Y.)
Subrogation under foreign compensation act held unenforceable

Resident
wrongdoer held suable for death of employee domiciled in sister state
allowing limited compensation with subrogation. Rorvik v. North Pac.
Lumber Co. (Ore.)

§ 370.

§ 371.

INJURIES ARISING OUT OF OR IN COURSE OF EMPLOY-
MENT.

IN GENERAL.

---

Painful neuralgic condition in cigar maker due to faulty posture of body in
work was not condition resulting from employment though it arose dur-
ing such employment-Act does not cover diseases contracted by em-
ployes in course of and arising out of employment, pain not being dis-
ease resulting in pain not being personal injury. Pimental's Case.
(Mass.)
To recover for accident. It must have arisen out of and in course of employ-
ment: risk is incidental to employment when it belongs to or is con-
nected with what employee has to do in fulfilling contract employer
within act is not insurer of safety of employees and is liable for com-
pensation only for injury which occurs to employee while performing
some act in course of employment. Weis Paper Mill Co. v. Indus. Comm.
(Ill.)
"Accident" should not be construed technically but includes every injury
suffered in course of employment if it can be definitely traced and if it
occurred without affirmative act or design of employee. Steel Sales
Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (III.)

Injury arises out of employment when accident results from risk reason-
ably incidental to employment. Sparks Milling Co. V. Indus. Comm.
(Ill.)
Accidents arising out of employment are those in which it is possible to
trace injury to nature of work or to risks to which business exposes
employees, and must result from risk reasonably incident to employment
where sales manager on vacation went by horse back to post office
to answer military questionairre and was injured in returning after
sending reply to business letter from employer, injury was not result of
accident arising out of employment. Continental Casualty Co. v. Indus.
Acc. Comm. (Calif.)

Accident must have arisen both out of and in course of employment to ren-
der employer liable under act. Leonbruno V. Champlain Silk Mills
(N. Y.)
Injury arises out of employment when it occurs in course of employment and
is result of risk involved in it, incident to it, or to conditions under which
it is to be performed, and there must be causal connection between in-
jury and employment. Diaz v. Warren Bros. Co. (Conn.)

§ 372.

...

496

196

385

185

307

303

290

434

483

517

CAUSE OF INJURY IN GENERAL.
Injured employe is entitled to compensation from employer for accident re-
sulting out of employment even though injury occurs by negligence of
third party. Hugh Murphy Const. Co. v. Serck (Neb.)
194
Where left leg was weakened in prior injury and servant lost right leg by
another accident and loss of right leg threw strain on left leg render-
ing it useless, such injury is not to be attributed to prior injury; but to
last injury. Saddlemire v. American Bridge Co. (Cònn)

130

Where employee was accidentally drowned on dredge in storm, recovery
on employer's insurance policies could not be defeated on ground that
accident was act of God. Southern Surety Co. v. Nelson. (Tex.)
Act permits award for death of city employee caused by influenza contract-
ed in course of employment and not by bodily injury through violence.
City and County of San Francisco v. Indus. Acc. Comm. (Calif.)
Injury to heart from influenza contracted by employee was injury for which
compensation could be awarded. Engels Copper Mining Co. v. Ind. Acc.
Comm. (Cal.)

§ 373.

PARTICULAR CAUSES OF INJURY.
Accident, to be within act, must have origin in some risk in employment.
City Chicago v. Indus, Comm (IL)
Killing of miner by car driver, both employees in mine, was not result
of accident in course of employment, and there was no causal connection
between employment and killing so that employer was not liable, having
resulted from quarrel in which deceased was aggressor Marion Co.
Coal Co. v. Ind. Comm. (Ill.)

Where employee of city, unloading freight car, refused drink to fellow
workman, quarrel ensued and injury resulted injury did not have origin
in risk of employment and widow is not entitled to compensation under
act. City Chicago v. Ind. Comm (Ill.)

Held that servant, subject to fits, who was drowned in five feet of water,
did not meet death in accident arising out of employment. Minerly v.
Kingsbury Const. Co (N Y.)

508

428

624

17

15

17

88

Where laboroer employed by another to unload car called by station agent,
not authorized to employ him, to assist in closing door of car as labor-
er was about to leave for home and was injured in so doing, accident
did not occur in course of employment of railroad company. Farrington
V. U. S. R. R. Adminis. (New York)
Where employee was killed by fellow employe after quarrel, held that in-
jury did not arise out of employment. Romerez v. Swift & Co. (Kan.) 162
Death of game protector employed by state, while fixing state boat for win-

ter quarters, so that he contracted pneumonia causing death, held "ac-
cidental injury". Christian v. State Conservation Comm. (N. Y.)
Where painter fell from ladder as result of attack of vertigo, injuries re-
sulted from accident and not from disease Board of Com'rs of Greene
County v. Shertzer. (Ind.)

Where epileptic employee fell into tank where employment required him to
be and was drowned accident arose out of employment. Miller v. Beil.
(Ind.)
Death of employee by lightning results from injury arising out of employ-
ment only in case employment is such as to expose him to danger from
lightning more than danger of community in general. Thier v. Widdi-
field. (Mich.)

......

Where employee loading straw sought rest in shade of box car during lei-
sure period and fell asleep and was fatally injured, injury did not arise
out of employment. Weis Paper Mill Co. v. Indus. Comm. (IN.)
Where there was no rule forbidding carrying matches, though smoking was
forbidden. commission could find that injuries caused by matches carried
by employee while in wash room arose out of employment. Steel Sales
Corp. v. Industrial Comm. (Ill.)

74

199

310

315

339

307

.... 303
Where employe, during interval in work was warming himself by fire on
premises and was injured by explosion of dynamite cap thrown in to fire
by fellow employe, injury arises out of employment. Willis v. State
Okla.)
Where employee at work was struck in eye by apple thrown by fellow ser-
vant in horse play, injury arose out of employment. Leonbruno v. Cham-
plain Silk Mills (N. Y.)..

Where employee resenting assault by fellow worker struck another believed
to be assailant, he in turn kicking claimant, injury arises out of employ-
ment. Verschleiser v. Joseph Stern Son, Inc. (N. Y.)
Carpenter, long subject to dizzy spells, who placed coffee on employer's
stove for lunch and burned hand in dizzy spell held not injured in course
of employment. Neubergr v. Third Ave. Ry. Co. (N. Y.)....
Where employee patrolling streets at night, guarding stores for employer
furnishing watchman servce, was struck by bullet shot by polceman pur-
suing burglar, injury did not arise out of employment. Heidemann v.
Amer. District Telegraph Co. (N. Y.)

Where servant died from peritonitis following operation after slight injury
death was not result of accidental injury in course of employment. Hoff-
man v. Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co. (N、 Y.).......

Injury to foreman when building collapsed from tornado as he was attempt-
ing to close windows, part of duty, held to have arisen out of and in
the course of employment and not by act of God Reid v. Automatic
Elec. Washer Co. (Iowa.)

377

483

472

485

568

569

662

$ 374.

IN URY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Where farmer employe was given permission to get pair of heavy shoes
before going to work but before going for shoes went to saloon and was
killed by automobile in going thence to post office for own purposes, he
was not acting within employment when killed. Gisner v. Dunlop
(N. Y.)

80

8

Where machine operator after few days work went to similar machine of
fellow operator sustained Injury to hand in attempting to oper-
ate it, machine being unguarded, unlike his own. injury did not arise
out of employment. Adams & Westlake Co. v. Indus Comm. (Ill.)
Where truck driver and deceased, both employes of teamster, in course of
work used elevator to move goods, and deceased was killed thereby, he
was in teamster's service under act. Colbourn v. Nichols. (Del.)........140
Where furniture driver instead of returning immediately after delivery, pro-
ceeded to another city where he becomes intoxicated, helper of driver
who was under control of driver and who was killed on return trip was
killed in course of employment. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Dur-
ham. (Tex.)

....

Employee while at work may go to wash room for personal purposes and
such acts will be considered incidental to employment and compensation
&warded for accidental injury received there. Steel Sales Corp. v. Indus.
Comm. (Ill.)
Injury to employe does not arise out of employment where he was set to
work at one machine, then worked at another, and without employer's
knowledge went to work at third, where he was injured. Henry v.
Indus. Comm. (Ill.)

.................

395

303

276

404

484

Where it was established custom of employees to go to windows for fresh
air, employee killed by falling to pavement below met death in accident
arising out of employment. Sparks Milling Co. v. Indus Comm. (Ill.) 299
Where employee working on road left it to seek shelter from storm and was
killed by lightning before reaching shelter, death was result of acci-
dent occurring in course of employment. State Road Comm. v. Indus.
Comm. of Utah. (Utah)
Factory employee driver of truck injured in cranking own car to go for pur-
chase of spark plugs for truck, held entitled to compensation Martin
v, Henry Card & Co. (N. Y.)..
Where mine employee left regular place and went to other section of mine
where no duty called him and there caused explosion of gas, death was
not in course of employment. Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. (Pa.) 499
Death of minor in open pit on fall of overhanging bank held result of accl-
dent arising out of employment though he had been ordered not to
work under bank. Indus. Comm. v. Funk. (Colo.)
436
Where rallroads maintaining parallel tracks over crossing each maintained
flagman to keep people off tracks, death of one flagman while attempt-
ing to rescue child on tracks of other railroad did not arise out of em-
ployment. Priglise v. Fonda, J. & G. R. Co. (N. Y.)...
Injuries to 11 year old boy employed in store, received while crossing street
to get water for general use of employees, held to have arisen out of
employment. McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Conn.) 525
Where employee in ice cream store was directed by employer who had inter-
est in adjoining saloon to go to police station in interest of customer ar-
rested in saloon and broke leg when pushed by officer at station house,
injury was not accidental injury arising out of employment.
Sabatelli
v. DeRobertis (N. Y.)
Where Contract of employment entitled waitress to ride free in employer's
hotel bus when on personal errand during off hours and was so injured
while returning to report for duty, injury did not arise in employment.
Roth v. Adirondack Co. (N. Y.)

Where employer forbade weavers to fix looms and employed special man to
do so and weaver was injured in placing substance on belt of loom, he
was acting outside scope of employment. Yodakle v. Alexander Smith
& Sons Carpet Co. (N. Y.)

Where employee during working hours stopped work, left place, went 100
yards away to another building of employer, lay down to sleep, and
slept for three hours until accidentally killed, held that accident did
not arise in course of employment. Colucci v. Edison Portland Cement
Co. (N. J.)

......

Injury in voluntary act outside of employment, though for benefit of em-
ployer, is not injury suffered in course of employment-where superin-
tendent directed safety enginer to assist in caring for company's in-
fluenza patients, engineer's services were not voluntary and accidental
injuries suffered therein entitled engineer to compensation. Engels Cop-
per Mining Co. v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.).
Operator who, without knowledge or permission of foreman or authority of
employer, went to roof to make repairs and was so injured, held not
injured in employment. Koza's Case. Appeal of Amer. Mut. Liability
Ins. Co. (Mass.)

487

573

557

-571

550

624

685

(2). Injury received while going to or from work.

Generally injury suffered in coming to or returning from employer's prem-
ises does not arise out of employment within act-Held that injury
to workman sustained while riding to place of work in conveyance fur-
nished by employer, in which workman was not directed or required to
ride does not arise out of employment. Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge &
Foundry Co. (Minn.)

Where employee was killed by being thrown from automobile furnished by
employer to transport employees to place of work, injuries arose out
of employment. Dominguez v. Pendola, (Cal.)
Where working day of employees in shipyard, to be reached only by boat,
began and closed at yard, employee killed while being conveyed in boat
chartered by employer at order and expense of government, after hav-
ing completed week's work and received pay, did not die from injuries
arising out of employment. Rausch v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp.
(N. Y.)
Railway employe injured while crossing yards of another company on way
to work, while crawling under car, although he had choice of several
other routes, was not killed in course of employment. Mazeffe v. Kan-
sas City Terminal Ry. Co. (Kan.)

Injuries to employee of store when using elevator to leave during lunch
hour to buy theatre tickets held to have arisen out of employment.
White v. E. T. Slatterly Co. (Mass.)

Where street car employee was injured by car when riding home to dinner
between hours of duty, injuries arise out of employment. Manchester
St. Ry. v. Barrett. (U. S)

........

.....

Diaz v.

.....

Where workman was injured in attempting to board motortruck to return
home after work, injuries did not arise out of employment.
Warren Bros. Co. (Conn.)
Employment necessarily includes reasonable time and space before and after
ceasing actual employment.-Injury to railroad employee received while
leaving after day's work held one "arising out of and in course of em-
ployment." Wabash Ry. Co. v. Indus. Comm. (Ill.)....
Where employee left place of employment during regular hours and was in-
jured in returning, injury held not one occurring out of and incidental
to employment. Fidel. & Cas. Co. of N. Y. v. Indus. Acc. Comm. of
Cal. (Cal.)

66

92

159

323

421

517

649

640

(2). Disease In general

565

Where infection was accelerated by injury it is not answer to claim for
compensation that disease or infection did not naturally and unavoida-
bly result from injury. Finkleday v. Henry Heide, Inc. (N. Y.)
Fact that applicant for compensation for injury, consisting of rupture of
blood vessel of brain, was predisposed because of disease to this form
of attack, is immaterial. St. Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House. (Mich.) 540
Where injuries to eye did not cause additional defect to sight, aready in-
jured by disease, compensation for loss was improperly awarded Perry
County Coal Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (Ill.)...
Predisposition to disease does not prevent award when disability is proxi-
mately caused by accident. Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co. v. Indus. Com.
(Wis.)

COMPENSATION.

§ 377. DEFENSES TO CLAIMS FOR
Employe who in darkness stepped into elevator well without due precaution
was negligent, precluding recovery against owners and lessees by com-
pensation insurer. Globe Indem. Co. v. Hook. (Cal.)

653

724

127

WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF EMPLOYEE IN GENERAL.
Employe of teamster, riding on boxes on freight elevator cannot, where
elevator was safe and, had boxes been properly loaded, he would not
have been injured, be deemed to have shown deliberate and reckless
indifference to danger which would bar recovery. Colbourn v, Nichols.
(Del.)
"Willful" is not necessarily fulfilled by voluntary and intentional omission
but includes element of intractableness, headstrong disposition to act by
rule of contradiction-Held that plaintiff, injured because of failure to
replace guards from machine which he was cleaning, was not precluded
by statute from recovery. Bersch v. Morris & Co. (Kan.)
"Reckless indifference to safety" means more than want of ordinary care
and implies rash careless spirit, willingness to take chance. Farmers'
Grain & Supply Co. of Minden v. Blanchard. (Neb.)

140

156

36