Injury resulting in death need not arise out of or be due to employment:
sufficient if it happened in course thereof. Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal
Co. (Pa.)

$ 372.

CAUSE OF INJURY IN GENERAL.
Where bill clerk at freighthouse fell into scale pit being constructed along a
usual route, while returning from midnight lunch, accident was not due to
condition of employment but may have arisen out of and in course of
employment. Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Matthews. (Ariz.)
Recovery cannot be had for police officer killed by persons whom he at-
tempted to arrest. Helburg v. Town of Louisville (Colo.)..
"Accidental injury" occurs in course of employment, unexpectedly, without
affirmative act or design unforeseen. Jakub v. Industrial Commission
(Ill.)
Where employee developed bone felon, result of long continued special occu-
pation, he could not recover for "accidental injury." Perkins v. Jackson
Cushion Spring Co. (Mich.).
Where neck was cut while being shaved at barber shop and on following
day employee in tannery hadling hides developed symptoms of anthrax,
his death was due to accidental injury in course of employment.
Eldridge v. Endicott, Johnson & Co. (N. Y.)...

Where watchman killed by burglars, left dependent widow who also died be-
fore compensation was made and administrator of workman's estate sued,
held that action was prosecuted by proper party, that full amount of com-
pensation was recoverable, and that injury causing death arose out of
employment. Smith v. Kaw Boiler Works Co. (Kans.)
Where laborer was killed by employer's truck going in direction necessary
for him to perform further duties, injury arose out of employment.
Fiarenzo v. Richards & Co. (Conn.)..

Where injury resulted from fight between employees, facts as to aggressor
and comparative strength were not controlling on question whether injury
arose out of and in course of employment. Swift & Co v. Industrial
Commission. (Ills.)
Where employee's helper quit and new helper was requested, and first helper
shot employee in ensuing quarrel, injury was incidental to employment.
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ill.).
Janitor killed while attempting to obtain clean gasoline to clean floors was
within act-that he was disobeying an order to use dirty gasoline has
no bearing on question whether injury arose in course of employment
but only on question of wilful misconduct. Nordyke & Marmon Co. v.
Swift (Ind.)
Where quarryman breaking rocks died of hemorrhage, held facts as stated
indicated injury by accident and injury arising out of employment.
Gilliland v. Ash Grove Lime & Port. Cement Co. (Kan.)..
Where cook on boat was drowned while returning with purchased provisions,
part of duty, death arose out of employment to justify award. West
man's Case (Me.)

747

3

152

153

237

621

87

599

35

159

179

187

213

Where salesman hurrying to catch train with heavy grips broke blood vessel,
injury was result of "accident." Crosby v. Thorp-Hawley Co. (Mich.).. 245
Contraction of glanders through inhalation of bacteria resulting in death of
stableman was not accidental injury arising out of employment. Rich-
ardson v. Greenberg (N. Y.)....

433

399

472

If one employee assaults another in revenge, injury results from voluntary
act of assailant not within employment, but when employee is assaulted
while defending employer or employer's interests, or incidental to some
duty of employment, injuries arise out of employment. Marshall v. Baker-
Vawter Co. (Mich.)
Personal injuries due to attack by employee of equal rank, following quarrel,
cannot be made basis for compensation. Metropol. Redwood Lumber Co.
v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)...
Where salesman, required by duties to go from place to place in city, slipped
and injured leg on street, he must be considered to have been performing
services incidental to employment and not ordinary street risk. Schroeder
& Daly Co. v. Indust. Comm. of Wis. (Wis.).....
Where employee died in course of employment from rupture of aorta, caused
by extra effort in vomiting, claimant, irrespective of anterior causes,
was entitled to compensation. Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. (Pa.)..., 747

-

§ 374.
INJURY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.
Where injury caused abscess necessitating weakening of leg bone which
gave way when employee rose from bed, requiring fatal operation, death
was result of injury. G. H. Hammond Co. v. Industrial Commission
(Ill.)
While there must be some casual relation between employment and injury,
it is not necessary that injury be one which ought to have been forseen.
Baum v. Industrial Comm. (Ill.)...

576

176

357

Mine watchman's death caused by blasting stumps to obtain fuel for cabin
furnished by employer held due to accident arising "out of and in course
of employment." Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Pallaro. (Colo.)

15

22

53

58

(1). In general.
Where school janitor fell while trimming tree in school yard, death did not
arise out of or in the course of employment. Compton v. Industrial Com-
mission. (Ills)
Injury occurs in course of employment when within period of employment
at place where employee may reasonably be, and while reasonably fulfill-
ing duties of employment or doing something incidental to it. Where
employee cleaning gravel on car, remained on car while being switched
and fell, injury was sustained in due course of and arose out of employ-
ment. Granite Sand & Gravel Co. v. Willoughby. (Ind.)
Where employee was killed while conveying workmen at direction of em-
ployer, an accustomed duty, death arose out of employment-employer
estopped from claiming employee was acting for private benefit of indi-
vidual member of firm. Rogers v. Rogers (Ind)...
Where teamster left wagon to recover receipts pertaining to his work, blown
off while in his hat, and was fatally injured by automobile, injury arose
out of employment. Keaney's Case-In re T. Libby & Co.-In re Travelers'
Ins. Co. (Mass.)....
Cook on boat, drowned while returning with purchased provisions, part
of duty, held injured in course of employment. Westman's Case (Me.).. 213
Under facts as stated, held accident arose out of employment. Morris & Co.
v. Cushing (Neb.)
268
Where employee entered office at foreman's invitation to view, found revolver
and was killed by accidental discharge of same, neither foreman nor
deceased was acting in employer's interest within act. Culhane V.
Economical Garage (N. Y.)....
Employee's employment may continue for interval after he had ceased
working; question where liability of employer ceases in each case to be
determined by facts. American Indemnity Co. (Tex.)...
Employee, injured in attempting to prevent child from being run over on
company's premises by automobile driven by officer, on company's business,
was injured in course of employment. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v.
Indust. Acc. Corp. (Cal.)...

Park workman, killed by lightning while under tree waiting to resume work
held injured in course of employment. Chiulla de Luca v. Board of
Park Com'rs, City of Hartford (Conn.).
Excavating work under wall for purpose of building pier is not "mason or
concrete work" and act did not apply prior to amendment where servant
of one ergaged in "mason, concrete work," etc., was injured while making
such excavation. Morris v. Muldoon (N.. Y.).......

(2). Injury received while going to or from work."
Petition alleging deceased had left for day and was a short distance from
plant when killed was demurrable because it showed injury not sustained
in course of employment-such injuries did not occur while in further-
ance of affairs of employer. American Indemn. Co. v. Dinkins (Tex.)...
If employee is injured while in performance of any of his duties, injury
arises out of employment. Heinze v. Industrial Comm. (Ill.) . . . .
Where employee voluntarily performs act in emergency, believing it in in-
terest of employer, and is injured, he is not acting beyond scope of em-
ployment-where employee was fatally wounded by strikers while trying
to save employer and other employees, injury arose out of employment.
Baum v. Industrial Comm. (III.)..

Employee who has arrived at place of employment for purpose of commenc-
ing work is performing service incidental to work-accident to employee
on way to work in use of necessary mode to ingress to work, provided
and required by employer, arose out of employment. Judson Mfg. Co.
V. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)
§ 376.

NATURE OF INJURY.

103

276

294

477

595

623

294
361

357

687

(2). Disease in general.
Compensation may be awarded, despite pre-existing disease, if aggravated
and accelerated by accidental injury which is immediate or proximate
cause of death-where employee was found dead near his machine, but
no evidence that his heavy work hastened death by disease, there could
be no recovery. Jakub v. Industrial Commission (Ill.)...
153
It is sufficient to justify award, if accident, by weakening resistance or
otherwise,, influence existing disease to cause death or disability. Mail-
man v. Récord Foundry & Machine Co. (Me.)...

205

Ohio state act has no application in case of employee blinded by glittering
surfaces which he inspected-an occupational disease. Zajkowski v.
American Steel & Wire Co. (U. S.)...
579

If death occurs during course of employment in ordinary way natural to
progress of employee's disease, there can be no recovery, but if death
results from injury due to accident in course of employment, fact of
employee's chronic ailment, rendering more susceptible to such injury.
will not defeat right to compensation. Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal
Co. (Pa.)
378.

IN GENERAL.

That employee was negligent in use of explosives while blasting in course
of employment is no defense. Ocean Acc.. & Guar. Corp. v. Pellaro.
(Colo.)

$380.
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF EMPLOYEE IN GENERAL.
Where blasted stumps were customary and cheapest fuel, and mine watchman,

747

15

required to obtain own fuel, not forbidden to use explosives, was killed
in so doing, he was not guilty of recklessness amounting to willful mis-
conduct Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Pallaro. (Colo.)

15

179

343

348

Where employer acquiesced in violation of order, it was nullified and em-
ployee was not guilty of wilful misconduct. Nordyke & Marmon Co.
v. Swift (Ind.)
Pressman catching at falling cards, resulting in injury to hand, although
warned against, was not guilty of wilful misconduct. Hyman Bros. Box
& Label Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)....
Where minor employee wiped grease from running machine, despite warning
sign, and was so injured, act was not wilful disobedience. Western Pac.
Ry. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
Where evidence established it was deceased's duty to run elevator, that
condition of elevator was not such as to require repairs, contention that
deceased, killed while investigating elevator rope out of order, was
guilty of wilful misconduct and that accident did not arise out of em-
ployment, will be overruled. Rowe v. Leonard Warehouses, Inc. (Mich.).. 393
Machinist helper's omission to wear goggles while at dangerous work, con-
trary to rules and specific instructions, merely because he disliked the
goggles, was "serious and wilful misconduct," McAdoo v. Indust. Acc.
Comm. (Cal.)
Laborer, killed attempting to ride on employer's truck going in direction of
his work held not guilty of willful misconduct. Fiarenzo v. Richards.
Co. (Conn.)

Written contract between employer and dependent widow of deceased in com-
pliance with statute, which was performed for a time, was a settlement
though not mentioning whether parties were engaged in interstate com-
merce. Employers misconception of whether liable under state or federal
statute, or ignorance of the law, was not such mistake as to authorize
setting aside partially performed settlement under state law-where in-
surer stopped payment on such settlement because of claim that deceased
was engaged in interstate commerce, it was estopped to assert injury did
not arise out of employment. Bach v. Interurban Ry. Co. (Ia.)
Under act, authorizing award if not settled by agreement, a settlement made
without fraud after injury is binding. Jenkins v. Texas Employers' Ins.
Ass'n. (Tex.)
Employer cannot complain of agreement for compensation approved by board
because it made no provision for payment during partial disability in
course of recovery-agreement for compensation between employee, em-
ployer and insurance carrier, knowing all detalls, pursuant to act, is ad-
mission of liability, when approved by board has force and effect of
award. Home Packing & Ice Co. v. Cahill (Ind.)
Mother, by accepting settlement as administratrix of estate or as individual
for all claims against company, whose negligence caused son's death,
did not thereby release his employer from liability, the employer being
free to proceed against negligent company. Naert v. Western Union
Tel. Co. (Mich.)
Obligation assumed by insurer under act and policy, no broader than act, held
to indemnify employer against liability imposed on him by act and nothing
else. Kratz v. Holland Inn (Iowa.)...
Agreement between insurer and widows of diseased employees by which in-
insurer agrees to pay compensation under act is not admission of com-
mon law or statutory liability, and amount agreed to be paid is not
adjustment of claim on causes outside act. Sterling v. London Guar. &
Acc. Co. (Mass.)

469

599

63

143.

184

231

487

610

Settlement made by workman with employer and insurer on assumption only
one eye was lost, and release executed, does not bar from thereafter
claiming for injury to other eye. Zinken v. Melrose Granite Co. (Minn.) 614

$ 383. ACCIDENT OR INSURANCE FUNDS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS THERETO.
Discretion of commission, giving employer consent to self-insure to require
deposit of bonds or securities, is not limited to case where there is
doubt at time of employer's ability-requirement to deposit $20,000 in
bonds held not an abuse of discretion. Bank of Los Banos v. Indust.
Acc. Comm. (Cal.)
Act does not preserve right of action existing in favor of injured employee
who would otherwise fall within act against employer who fails to pay
into accident fund amount it would be required to contribute because
employce was within act. Gowey v. Seattle Lighting Co. (Wash.)...... 752

587

Where injury caused temporary total disability and evidence indicates per-
manent partial disability, employee is entitled to award for entire period
not exceeding 300 weeks, less number of weeks for which compensation
already received. Mack v. Legeal (La.)..

In case of injury to minor employee, act justifies compensation on basis of
probable wage at 21, not after. Western Pac. Ry. Co. v. Industrial Acc.
Comm. (Cal.)
Commission computing compensation of injured minor employee should use

202

348

basis of probable wages "at" twenty-one, not those long "after" majority.
Hyman Bros. Box. & Label Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.).
Tips received by Pullman car porter are understood by him and company to
be part of wages and can be considered in determining compensation for
injuries. Bryant v. Pullman Co. (N. Y.)......
Tips received by employee are part of remuneration to be considered in de-
termining "average weekly earnings." Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v.
Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)

(2). Injury to arm, hand, or finger.
In awarding compensation for injuries to hand, commission should determine
wage earning capacity not actual wages received since accident. In re
Behrens (N. Y.)

(4).

Loss of arm, hand, or finger.
Where employee by injury lost four fingers on right hand, commission was
authorized to estimate proportionate loss of use of hand. Berman v
Reliance Metal Spinning & Stamping Co. (N. Y.)
Compensation for injury resulting in loss of use of certain fingers with inter-
ference with use of other fingers and hand is not limited to specified
compensation for loss of such fingers but may be awarded under "other
cases.' In re Behrens (N. Y.).....

(5). Total disability.

Where employee, injured and receiving compensation, worked for another and
was injured, resulting in total disability, he is not entitled to receive
more than $10 per week, whether paid by one employer or both. O'Brien
v. Albert A. Albrecht Co. (Mich.)
Where injured employee had worked several years where injured, his average
weekly wages, not those of others similarly engaged, were proper basis
for determining amount of compensation. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v.
Davis (Tex.)

(6). Loss of arm, hand, or finger.
Injured employee's selection of physician other than one of staff maintained
by employer was election at own expense. Swift & Co v. Industrial
Commission (I11.)

(7). Loss of leg or foot.
Where injured employee's leg was amputated after he had received hos-
pital and medical services under act and compensation for total inca-
pacity for 54 weeks, the 125 week period of compensation for loss of
leg commenced with date of operation. not of accident. Addison V.
W. E. Wood Co. (Mich.)..

(8). Partial disability.
Evidence and finding pertaining to allowance for compensation for injuries,
examined and no error discerned. Jacobs v. Hamilton Coal & Merc. Co.
(Kan.)

343

633

593

282

128

282

234

310

168

717

496

270

(11). Permanent disability-Loss of or injury to eye.
Permanent loss of use of organ is equivalent to loss of organ itself. Phon-
ville v. N. Y. & Cuba S. S. Co. (N. Y.)..
Injury to employee which resulted in loss of one testicle held a "permanent
injury," Hercules Powder Co. v. Morris Co. Ct. of Common Pleas (N. J.). 525
Workman was not entitled to recover, for injuries classified as permanent
partial disabilities, awards aggregating more than the maximum pro-
vided for permanent partial disability, although received at different
times, where combined injuries did not come within classification of
permanent total disabilities. Biglan v. Indust. Ins. Comm. (Wash.).. 650
Claimant is not deprived of all compensation for refusal to accept medical
services from employer and employment of other physician, but only
of compensation for injury or increase of incapacity caused by refusal.
Neary v. Phila. & Read'g Coal & Iron Co. (Pa.)..
(11%).

Where one eye was injured to half of seeing ability and thereafter both
eyes were injured so tha workman could not longer follow occupation,
held he is entitled to permanent partial disability compensation.
Zinken v. Melrose Granite Co. (Minn.).......

. 642

614

270

(12). Loss of arm, hand, or finger.
Employee who has lost three-fourths of right hand is entitled to full com-
pensation for three-fourths of time, not three-fourths of compensation
for full time. Phonville v. N. Y. & Cuba S. S. Co. (N. Y.)
Despite prohibition that award for more than one finger exceed amount for
loss of hand, one who could not work at occupation by reason of loss of
several fingers and laceration of tendons, could obtain compensation be-
yond limit of 150 weeks provided for loss of hand where disability con-
tinued beyond such time. Schimmel v. Detroit Pressed Steel Co. (Mich.). 413
(14).
Injury to leg or foot.

Injury to leg may justify larger compensation than loss of leg-it was not
error to follow this instead of schedule. Close v. Lucky O. K. Mining
Co. (Kan.)

492
(17). Deductions or set-offs, and duty of claimant to reduce loss. -
Where deceased was paid regular weekly wages about six months, less de-
duction for supplies and tools, without objection, refusal to make any
deduction therefor in determining wages on ground there was no such
express agreement, was reversible error. Reitmyer v. Coxe Bros. &
Co. (Pa.)

644

Submission to surgical operation.

(18).
Employee who suffered injury resulting in hernia, incurable except by opera-
tion and who refused to undergo operation, should not be allowed com-
pensation while persisting in refusal. O'Brien V. Albert A. Albrecht
Co. (Mich.)
.... 234
Where arm is so fractured that permanent total disability is created unless
amputated, award is not limited to that of loss of arm, as total permanent
disability may exist without loss or injury to specific member. Simpson
v. N. J. Stone & Tile Co. (N. J.).

..... 425

(20). Commutation of payments and award of gross sum.
Under act, commutation and payment in lump sum by order of district court
authorized only in exercise of sound discretion upon an agreement or set-
tlement by parties. Myers v. Armour & Co. (Neb.)
Swallowing pins while trimming show window, rendering claimant bed-
ridden and necessitating surgical operation to save life, was "unusual
circumstance" warranting commutation of award into lump sum-pro-
vision that such commutation be not allowed to satisfy debt, etc., does
not defeat where unusual circumstances require such payment to save.
life. Jensen v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (N. J.)........

Where boy, 16, with partially dependent mother, was killed during first week
of last employment, "annual earnings" are ascertained by wages received
during preceding 12 calendar months-annual earnings to be ascertained
by reference to same factors as "average weekly wages" unless inapplic
able under all circumstances. Freeman's Case-In re Automatic Time
Stamp Co. In re Amer. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. (Mass.)....

(2). Deductions.

Expenses incurred by parent on account of deceased minor son are pertinent in
determining_dependency, but irrelevant in ascertaining amount of com-
pesation. Freeman's Case-In re Automatic Time Stamp Co.-In re
Amer. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. (Mass.)

112

421

498

498

(4). Commutation of payments and award of gross sum.
Right to have compensation commuted to lump sum is available only to em-
ployer who pays voluntarily, not to one who refuses until adjudged liable
in proceedings. G. H. Hammond Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ill.).... 176
(5). Apportionment of payments.

Commission was not required to apportion award between widow and child
where there was no contest as to who should receive benefit-provision
for determination of proportionate share of each beneficiary does not
require what proportion every member of the class may receive. Swift &
Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ill.)..
Commission, awarding lump sum to administrator, not required to declare
proportion of each beneficiary, such distribution to be made by court ap-
pointing administrator. G. H. Hammond Co. v. Industrial Commission
(III.)
Act providing beneficiaries upon death of husband will take by law of de-
scent, means descent relating to community property and not per
capita as provided by law of descent relating to separate property. Техав
Employers' Ins. Ass'n v Boudreaux (Tex.).

163

176

563

FOR DEATH OF EM-

33

Under statute, award in proper case to father and mother of deceased em-
ployee on ground of dependency, employee having left neither wife nor
children, may be sustained. Pifumer v. Rheinstein & Haas, Inc. (N. Y.).. 136
Dependency of mother justifying award, is personal dependency for support
and maintenance, actual and consistent with position in life, not includ-
ing maintenance of others, or unnecessary contributions-by statute, one
partially dependent, whatever the degree, entitled to minimum award
Rock Island Bridge & Iron Works v. Industrial Commission. (Ills.)
Under statute, children of decedent living with him and his unlawful con-
sort were dependents. Piccinim v. Connecticut Light & Power Co. (Ct.)
Dependent is one who is sustained by, relies for support upon the aid of,
looks for support to, and relies for reasonable necessaries consistent with
the dependent's position in life upon another. Rock Island Bridge & Iron
Works v. Industrial Commission. (Ills)
Dependency of half brother within act, could not be ruled adversely to him
because not made directly to him but to his mother, decedent's step-
mother. O'Flynn's Case. (Mass.)

Where watchman killed by burglars, left dependent widow who also died be-.
fore compensation was made and administrator of workman's estate sued,
held that action was prosecuted by proper party, that full amount of com-
pensation was recoverable, and that injury causing death arose out of
employment. Smith v. Kaw Boiler Works Co. (Kans.)
Award made to widow with provision for unpaid balance to surviving
children in event of her death, held proper. Zoladtz v. Detroit Auto
Spec. Co. (Mich.)..

18

33

105

87

259

Brothers were beneficiaries within act. American Indemn. Co. v. Zyloni
(Tex.)

315

Father contributing $12 per week to common fund of $30 for family main-