... 584 629 629 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. (Com.) Attempt to start fire by use of kereosene which he supposed was signal oil did not thereby add to his employment any peril outside thereof, and injury arose out of employment. Benson y. 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.).... 499 476 144 221 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. ... 18 186 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.). 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.)..... ....... 102 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 màchine or what kind should be used, he was acting within course of employment. Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commisslon 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.). 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.)..... 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 577 627 572 fice and who was struck by passing automobile while in act of mounting That machinist disobeyed master's orders requiring him to remain in pit to ... Where chauffeur employed to drive passenger to certain town reached des- .... (2). Injury received while going to or from work. 620 421 361 491 399 428 549 30 78 116 154 Where miner, going to get tools in part of mine where he was told not to go, Elevated railway guard having two hours off, who stayed on train to ride ..... 184 187 Injury and death of tobacco plantation workers after they had entered into 786 791 605 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.) 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, findMcInerney ing that accident arose out of employment was unwarranted. 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 Rish v. Iowa was confined to different building and prohibited in shop. Portland Cement Co. (Iowa).. (1). In general. 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.)....... 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 cian stated that finger could be saved. Enterprise Fence & Foundry Co. v. Majors (Ind.)....... 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.). 495 463 113 227 284 700 577 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 as to preclude award. National Car Coupler Co. v. Marr et al. (Ind.).. 456 INTOXICATION. § 381. 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.)... 448 382. SATISFACTION OR RELEASE. Settlement receipt neither filed nor approved by Board does not prevent action 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.). 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.).. 311 682 435 383. ACCIDENT OR INSURANCE FUNDS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS THERETO. Mere contest by employer of order of Commission for commutation of award of death benefit to widow does not constitute good cause within act empowering Commission to revoke, for good cause shown, its consent for self-insurance. State Industrial Commission v. Yonkers R. Co. (N. Y.). 512 It was improper for Commission, pursuant to previous resolution, to require self-insurer, whose solvency was not questioned to pay into state fund present value of award to widow and children of deceased employeewhile law provides that Commission may require agreement on part of any employer to pay award computed under section 27 into special fund or state fund as condition to self-insurance, such consent does not require employer to observe arbitrary and illegal orders of Commission. Sperduto v. New York City Interborough Ry. Co. (N. Y.).......... 503 Insured employee seeking compensation must submit to operation which will cure him, when so advised by attending physician, when not attended with danger to life or health or extraordinary suffering and he cannot obtain compensation for permanent impairment resulting from such refusal. Enterprise Fence & Foundry Co. v. Majors (Ind.).. Under Act, life expectancy of claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability is at least proper element for consideration to assist in determining whether he is entitled to full maximum allowance or less sum -Act is to be construed liberally for protection of employee and Commission is restricted as to amount of weekly allowances only by statutory maximum, regardless of aggregate amount awarded. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.).... Claimant who suffered fracture of base of skull as result of which his sight and hearing were impaired and who suffered from dizziness, headache and general disability, being unable to work at his occupation of mining coal, condition being probably permanent, not inequitable to allow compensation for 25 per cent, disability, to be reduced at any time of proof of improvement. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Colo.)... "Compensation" connection in which used in Compensation Act means money relief afforded according to scale established and for persons designated and not compensatory damages recoverable in action at law for wrong done or contract broken. Duart v. Simmons (Mass.).... Where employee lost not only sight of his eye but eye itself, his case would not fall within that part of section 18, making compensation solely for "loss of sight" but within general provision awarding compensation "in all other cases of permanent partial disability." Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone & Sand Co. (Ky.).............. Schedule of compensation for specific injuries may be used by Compensation Board as standard by which to measure compensation to be allowed by injuries not specified but falling within general clause awarding compensation in all other cases of permanent partial disability." Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone & Sand Co. (Ky.)..... (4). — Loss of arm, hand, or finger. Painter who, through laceration of left hand, affecting extensor muscles controlling third and fourth fingers, practically lost use of fingers, though earning capacity was not diminished, did not "lose" fingers within Compensation Act and was entitled to compensation only for difference in earning capacities before and after accident. In re Merchant's Case (Me.)... Award for loss of arm under act justified by medical testimony that amputation of forearm and wrist, though it had not destroyed use of arm entirely, had taken away a great deal of its function. Stocin v. C. R.. Wilson Body Co. et al. (Mich.). Loss of more than fourth but less than half of index finger-not entitled to award for loss of half. Tetro v. Superior Printing & Box Co. et al. (N. Y.) 118 91 91 186 132 130 732 763 360 (5). Total disability. Held, where servant who had already lost an arm suffered loss of leg, there was total disability, for employer hiring servant as one able only to do work of one-armed man. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.) (6). —— Loss of arm, hand, or finger. Employee, who had previously lost part of one finger, but nevertheless had use of hand, who, as result of latter injury not resulting in total severance, totally lost use of hand, was entitled to compensation for "total loss of use of hand," though with mechanical appliance on wrist he could perform some manual labor. Mark Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).. 435 594 (8). Partial disability. Injured workman who only in pain and distress and with friendly help of fellow workmen can earn as much as he did before injury may maintain action against employer for permanent partial incapacity. Raffaghelle v. Russell (Kans.) ........... 293 In computing compensation for one partially disabled, average weekly wages that injured servant has been able to earn since injury is factor, but not wages he has been able to earn since injury. Miller v. S. Fair & Sons et al. (Mich.) Work of one engaged in what is ordinarily described as common labor is an "employment" within meaning of act, so that servant employed in shoveling, requiring two hands, at time of injury, was not wholly diaabled. but was only partially disabled, where he could do other work with one hand. Miller v. S. Fair & Sons (Mich.)... 752 ... 752 (11%). Servant, who, with powerful glasses, had vision of one-third with injured right eye, if he closed other eye, so that he could have only one eye and if he used injured eye had but one-third vision was properly_awarded compensation for loss of use of right eye. Smith v. F. & B. Const. Co. et al. (N. Y.).. Where employee was near-sighted and had only 50 per cent vision lost use of eye, it was not error to allow compensation for loss of eye, as against claim that she had lost only 50 per cent of vision-wages received by empolyee must be considered her wage-earning capacity with defective vision. Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y.).. (12). — Loss of arm, hand, or finger. Where injury necessitated amputation of arm below elbow resulting in employee's permanent loss of use of his arm, he was entitled to compensation for loss of arm rather than logs of hand under that section which Includes all cases of permanent loss of members mentioned therein without regard to point of amputation as well as in case of loss from injury not requiring amputation. Pater v. Superior Steel Co. (Pa.).. (16). Temporary disability. 189 498 793 Workman injured in course of employment is not to be denied compensation for such injury and consequent diminished earning capacity merely because injury was not so serious as to totally disable him from labor for first two weeks immediately succeeding accident. Raffaghelle v. Russell (Kansas) 293 Loss of leg-award for period of 133 weeks temporary total incapacity for work was warranted. Moustgaard v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.). 600 (16). Expenses of medical or surgical treatment, and nursing. Where injured employee was furnished physician during week following accident, but after apparent recovery and some months after accident required further medical attention because of tumor resulting from injury, employer was not required to reimburse employee for surgical and hospital expenses in treatment of tumor, such expenses not having been contracted during 30 days immediately following injury-provision construed so that 30-day period commences with actual disability of employee and not with accident, so that, if disability is not concurrent with accident, period does not start until medical attention becomes necessary. John A. Shumaker Co. et al. v. Kendrew (Ind.)........................................ 122 (17). Deductions or set-offs, and duty of claimant to reduce loss. Though stevedore presented claim and accepted compensation under State Compensation Law held that as Commission was without jurisdiction the acceptance of compensation is not bar to libel in admiralty, the payments if made by employer being deductible from recovery and if made by state to be treated as gratuities. Neumann v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc. (U. S.).. ... 562 Allowance for hospital charges and medical attendance of reasonable amount actually incurred by defendant for benefit of workman is proper. Gadberry v. Hutchinson Egg Case Filler Co. (Kan.). Where Fund agreed to pay weekly compensation to servant, who thereafter recovered from physician for malpractice, on petition of Fund, it is not entitled to credit for sum received by servant from physician in reduction of amount due, from Fund to claimant under act. Smith v. Battjes Fuel & Building Material Co. et al. (Mich.).. (18). Submission to surgical operation. Where condition of total disability was entirely due to original injury, State Fund not entitled to be relieved from weekly payment it had agreed to make during disability on ground that present disability was caused by unskillful treatment or refusal to have operation, Smith v. Bats Fuel & Building Material Co .et al. (Mich.).... (20). Commutation of payments and award of gross sum." Injured servant, totally disabled permanently, and awarded compensation of $8 a week for his life, was entitled to lump sum settlement if facta 473 338 333 |