Employment in garage without any understanding as to time of employment
or particular character of labor to be performed held not "casual em-
ployment". Nedela v. Mares Auto Co. (Neb.)...
Coal yard laborer temporarily assisting those working on employer's farm is
not "engaged in agriculture". Matis v. Schaeffer (Pa.)
Act held applicable to janitor in school building subject to boiler inspec-
tion: "guarding appliances for protection of the public". East St. Louis
Board of Ed. v. Indust. Comm. (I.).....
Fireman held "officer", not "employee" within act prior to amendment. Jack-
son v. Wilde (Cal.)
City's contract for insuring lives of its employees against death or disability
irrespective of whether they occurred from any act in course of employ-
ment, was not authorized by Compensation Law, since latter only relates
to hazardous employments. People ex rel. Terbush & Powell, Inc., v.
Dibble, City Comptroller (N. Y.)
Water supply policeman not "employee". Kahl v. City of New York (N. Y.) 618
Superintendent of city bridges held "employee" within act, and not "public
officer". Burrell v. City of Bridgeport (Conn.
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Where son was accidentally killed while in employ of interstate common car-
rier by express, held, there was liability under Act notwithstanding.
Pushor v. American Ry. Exp. Co. (Minn.)..
Employee directing moving of coal car in yards held not engaged in inter-
state commerce. Pullman Car Lines v. Riley (Del.)..
Switchman cutting car from interstate train is engaged in "interstate com-
merce". Midwest Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Davis, Dir. Gen. of R. R's
(Mo.)
Minor claimant employed in print shop as errand boy and helper under statu-
tory permit, regularly issued where there was no danger in employ-
ment unless he disobeyed instructions to keep away from machinery, held
not employed in violation of child labor law. Radtke Bros. v. Indust.
Comm, of Wis. (Wis.)
Act is remedy for injuries to infant illegally employed. Noreen v. William
Vogel & Bros. (N. Y.)
§ 367.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Test whether injured was independent contractor or employee is whether em-
ployer reserved authority only to direct result to be attained and left
means to employee, in which case the later is a contractor, or whether
employer has right to direct means in which case relationship is that of
employee-Coal mine rock contractor. under circumstances as stated,
held "employee". Kelley v. Delaware, L. & Western R. Co. (Pa.)........... 130
Agreement of parties that deceased was employee of independent contractor
performing work for fire engineers of the town must be construed to
mean that employer was in general an independent contractor, and not
that he was such as to the particular work, as such construction would
make it conclusive against claim.-Relation of master and servant does
not exclude like relation between third party and employee sustaining
compensable injury. Chisholm's Case (Mass.).
Traveling salesman held entitled employee and not independent contractor
although he was not upon pay roll of employer and was not paid wages,
receiving compensation by way of commission. U. S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co. of Baltimore, Md., v. Lowry (Tex.)..
Members of contracting firm, pumping sand from well, held "independent
contractors" where they furnished their own appliances and paid their
own expenses, and who were not subject to control while doing their
work. Pryor v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)
Claimant's relation as employee or contractor is ultimate fact to be deter-
mined from evidence.--Log hauler using own team at specified date held
employee and not independent contractor. although employer having
right to exercise unlimited control with right to discharge did not actually
exercise any control over him. Coppes Bros. & Zook v. Pontius (Ind.).. 495
Employee who took job during free time to unload car was independent con-
tractor and fellow employee who agreed to help him for a share in the
price and who was injured could not recover from employer Zoltowski
v. Ternes Coal & Lumber Co. (Mich.).
Independent contractor is not "workman" or "employee" within Act.
ley's Dependents v. Hoosac Lumber Co. (Vt.)...
Under cicumstances as stated, claimant held employee of independent con-
tractor and not of millowner. Farmer v. Purcell (Kan.)..
Claimant, under contract to saw wood for farmer, held "independent con-
tractor" not "employee".
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT MADE OR TO BE PER-
FORMED IN FOREIGN STATE
$369. INJURIES OCCURRING IN FOREIGN STATE.
Where employer and employee, in contract to be performed within and with-
out state, elect to become subject to act, relation under it is contractual
and injury occurring outside state while employee is within ambit of em-
ployment is compensable. Crane v. Leonad, Crossette & Riley (Mich.).. 402
Traveling salesman, injured without state, held within act. Stansberry v.
Monitor Stove Co. (Minn.)
370. INJURIES ARISING OUT OF OR IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.
# 371.
IN GENERAL.
If accident does not occur "in course of" it cannot arise "out of" employ-
ment: words "in course of employment" relate to time, place, and
circumstances under which accident takes place, and accident arises
in course of employment when it occurs within period of employment at
place where employee reasonably may be in performance of his duties
and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something in-
cidental thereto. Fournier's Case (Me.)
There can be no award unless there is some causal connection between em-
ployment and injury. Reeves v. John A. Dady Corp. (Conn.)..
If accident occurred in course of employment, it is not necessary to show
that it arose out of employment. Twin Peaks Canning Co v. Indust.
Comm. (Utah.)
Injury arises out of the employment" when it appears in view of all cir-
cumstances that there is causal connection between conditions under
which work is required to be performed and resulting injury. Dough-
erty's Case (Mass.)
Compensation cannot be awarded unless injuries arose both out of and in
course of employment. Clark v. Voorhees (N. Y.)
"Accidental" injury means bodily injury by accident. Ideal Fuel Co. v. In-
dust. Comm. (Ill.)
Compensation was recoverable on showing accident incidental to employment
regardless of negligence. Radtke Bros. v. Indust, Comm of Wis.. (Wis) 460
Claimant's relation to employer should be determined from all facts rather
than from any particular feature of employment or service. Knuffke
v. Bartholomew (Neb.)
$372.
CAUSE OF INJURY IN GENERAL.
Injury through natural causes, to which employee is not specifically exposed,
is not "accident". Savage v. City of Pontiac (Mich.).
PARTICULAR CAUSES OF INJURY.
§ 373. -
Injury received while using elevator in premises leased to employer held
compensable "incident and hazard of employment". Latter's Case
(Mass.)
Employee injured during course of employment though by willful act of co-
employee, is within act, if there is some causal relation between the em-
ployment and injury. Hinchuk v.. Swift & Co. (Minn.)
Where servant lifting heavy box, strained left side and hernia resulted, there
was "accidental injury". Jordan v. Decorative Co. (N. Y.).
Injury by fall caused by faintness held not to "arise out of employment"
although it would be inferred injured went to door protected only by bar
for some purpose connected with his employment, if uncontested finding
did not show the contrary. Reeves v. John A. Dady Corp. (Conn.)
Generally, where employee is intentionally injured by fellow servant, there
is no liability. Milne v. Sanders (Tenn.).
Injury to youthful worker playing joke on companion on elevator held "in
course of employment". Twin Peaks Canning Co. V. Indust. Comm.
(Utah.)
Act covers cases of injury or death from sunstroke. Matis v. Schaeffer (Pa.) 140
Held there was no evidence that plaintiff, quarry workman, was injured
while within zone of danger from operation of quarry. Alvarado V.
Flower Bros. Rock Crusher Co. (Kan.)...
Sunstroke suffered by employee, while doing work he was employed to per-
form, was received in "course of his employment". Dougherty's Case.
(Mass.)
Death of employee, suffering cerebral hemorrhage while moving flat car into
position into gravel pit, on hot day, held compensable under circum-
stances. Murray v. H. P. Cummings Const. Co. (N. Y.)..
Assault on employee by fellow employee, while on employer's premises, look-
ing for tools and shoes used in employer's business, preparatory to be-
ginning work, is accident "arising out of and in course of employment".
Janschewsky v. E. W. Bliss Co. (N, Y.)..
Assault provoked in controversy over work held "accidental injury arising
out of and in course of employment”. Knocks v. Metal Package Corp.
(N. Y.)
Compensation not awarded for death from unusual exposure to weather.
Savage v. City of Pontiac (Mich.)
Injury incurred while scuffling with subforeman held not compensable.
of Pasadena v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
Accidental shooting by employer held injury within act. Gen. Acc., Fire &
Life Assur. Corp. v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal).
Where truck driver fell from truck when suffering attack of heart disease
and was crushed to death, compensation was recoverable-injury aris-
ing solely from idiopathic condition is not compensable-employee's
state of health is incident of employment within act. Geo. L. Eastman
Co. v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)...
Injury which is received in course of employment does not necessarily arise
out of employment. Spring Canyon Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm of Utah
(Utah.)
INJURY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE.
Death from disease ensuing after injury which, but for accident, would not
have ensued, and which disease causes death, held compensable. Gei-
zel v. Regina Co. (N. J.)....
Injury to workman need not be sole cause of his death in order to entitle
his dependents to compensation, but it is sufficient if it be a concurring
cause. Miami Coal Co. v. Luce (Ind.)
Death from disease develoipg after injury held compensable.
Indust. Ins. Comm. (Wash.).....
Death of employee assisiting in filling oil tank, without having been expressly
ordered to so do, held to have arisen "out of and in course of his em-
ployment". Milne v. Sanders (Tenn.)
If employee is injured by risk incidental to his employment but while he is
doing something utterly irrelevant to employment, he is not entitled to
compensation. Reeves v. John A. Dady Corp. (Conn.)
Injury received while using forbidden means held not to "arise in course of
employment". Fournier's Case (Me.)
Injury while voluntarily driving team in parade not held during working
hours and without pay was properly held not compensable. Hutno v.
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. (Pa.)
Finding that chauffeur's fall from truck was caused by sudden jerk of truck,
held final on appeal, and ground for award of death benefits. McClos-
key v. Richard Hellman, Inc. (X, Y)
Injuries to oiler received away from machinery he oiled and in place where
he had no basiness to be held not to "arise out of and in course of em-
ployment". Haas V Kansas City Light & Power Co. (Kan.).....
Fatal injuries to chauffeur, while taking friends on pleasure trip before he
was to call at designated place for employer, did not arise out of em-
ployment though employer consented to such trips. Lansing v. Hayes
(N. Y.)
Death of employee while crossing railroad at unusual place, although in
course of employment was not compensable. Mason v. Alexandre (Conn.) 354
Where fireman in sawmill was injured by contact with saw, not in vicinity
of his duties, injury was not compensable. Pierre v. Barringer (La.)... 395
Injury to salesman injured while doing service for customer held compensa-
ble. Chase v. Emery Mfg. Co. (Pa.)...
416
injury to minor doing forbidden act held not compensable.-Fact that em-
ployer paid injured emplovee money during time of temporary disability
did not preclude employer from making defense that employee at time
of accident was not performing service growing out of and incidental to
his employment. Radtke Bros. v. Indust. Comm. of Wis. (Wis.).......
Injury in elevator at noon held in course of employment, for employer was
bound to furnish safe exit from place of employment. Martin v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co. (N, YO
Inder circumstances stated, injury while seeking transportation from work
held not compensable. Orsinie v. Torrance (Conn.)..
Injury received on street while going to restaurant held not one "arising out
of or in course of employment". Clark v. Voorhees (N. Y.).
(2). Injury received while going to or from work.
Injury received while going to or from work is not in course of employment.
Clapp's Parking Station v. Indust, Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
Sawmill employee riding homeward from work on own velocipede on com-
pany's tramroad and killed by train held not in course of employment.
Kirby Lumber Co. v. Scurlock (Tex.)
Injury while extinguishing fire held within act-act necessary for benefit of
employer is in course of employment. Associated Employers' Recipro-
cal v. State Indust. Comm. (Okla.)
Traveling salesman, killed while attempting to escape from burning hotel,
held within act. Stransberry v. Monitor Stove Co. (Minn.)..
Injury to miner riding in "cage" in violation of law held within act. Union
Colliery Co. v. Indust. Comm. (Ill.)
Injury by kick of horse, beaten by employee in anger, held not compensable.
Harris v Kaul Minn.)
Injury while going home to lunch during the noon hour held not compensa-
ble. Taylor v. Binswanger & Co. (Va.)
When workman was killed some distance from place of his employment,
while boarding train on which employer furnished free transportation
from place of employment to workman's home, held accident causing
death was one which "arose out of and in course of employment".
Fisher v. Tidewater Building Co. (N. J.)
Where shipbuilding company operated under contract with federal govern-
ment on cost plus profits basis and company's expenses in furnishing
railroad transportation to employees were part of cost, injury to em-
ployee boarding train to return home held in "course of employment".
Western Indemnity Co. v. Leonard (Tex.)
To render employer liable for malpractice of physician, injury must result
from necessary efforts to relieve from consequences of original injury
received during employment. Wood v. Vroman (Mich.)...
Injury on street while obtaining supplies for lunch on employer's premises
held not to arise out of employment. Pearce v. Indust. Comm. (I!).. 786
Injury to salesman on way to visit first customer held compensable; "per-
forming services growing out of and incidental to his empoyment".
U. S. Casualty Co. v. Superior Hardware Co. (Wis.)..
Death may be found as having been caused by accident although there was
diseased bodily condition prior to injury without which death would not
have ensued. Geizel v. Regina Co. (N J.)
Occurrence which merely hastens existing disease to final culmination will
be deemed "accident" and, where such occurrence arises out of and in
course of employment, compensation will be awarded. Utilities Coal Co.
v. Herr (Ind.)
DEFENSES TO CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.
In action against railroad for injuries to consignee's employee struck by bar-
rel, rolling from freight car to storehouse platform, whether railroad
employees were negligent in releasing barrel and permitting it to run
wild held question for jury.-Contributory negligence of consignee's em-
ployee struck by barrel held for jury. Davis v. Central Vt. Ry. Co. (Vt.) 328
# 378.
IN GENERAL.
Fact that injured employee received more wages since injury than he was
earning at time of injury does not preclude compensation if he has been
unable, by reason of injury, to follow particular employment he was en-
gaged in when injured. Woodcock v. Dodge Bros. (Mich.)..
Claim should not be disallowed as against insurance carrier because
ployer and servant had agreed to filing of complaint by employee in
order to fix liability on carrier, such agreement not being improper, and
it was not material that employer paid employee more than is allowed
by law, being pure gratuity. Chase v. Emery Mfg. Co. (Pa.)
Act allows compensation regardless of employee's fault. Anderson v. Indust.
Ins. Comm. (Wash.)
Evidence tending to show that automobile driver who injured pedestrian was
at time to left of and beyond center of street in turning to right held to
make a driver's negligence question for jury. U. S. Casualty Co. v. Su-
perior Hardware Co. (Wis.)
![[ocr errors][merged small]](https://books.google.com.pe/books/content?id=_hgWAAAAYAAJ&output=html_text&pg=RA2-PT21&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:UOM39015065180872&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1PaxKadjJLjvPLxGk_fk0AA_z2ug&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=121,1053,59,14)
MISREPRESENTATIONS BY EMPLOYEE IN OBTAINING EM-
PLOYMENT.
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF EMPLOYEE IN GENERAL.
Injuries to youthful worker using elevator contrary to orders held not "pur-
posely self-inflicted". Twin Peaks Canning Co. v. Indust. Comm. (Utah.) 176
Insult provoking assault held not willful misconduct defeating compensa-
tion. Knocks V. Metal Package Corp. (N, Y)
Employer cannot repudiate agreed settlement with claimant, in relance or
which claimant had dismissed petition for compensation and had taken
out letters of administration on husband's estate, on ground that settle-
ment was
facts.
entered into by employer without full knowledg of
Kuhn v. Pa. R. Co. (Pa.)
Consideration for claimant's covenant not to sue third person held not al-
lowable in reduction of claim.--Claimant's covenant not to sue third
person held not release of liability for "damages".
V. Model
Laundry, Cleaning & Dyeing Co. (Iowa.)
§ 383. ACCIDENT OR INSURANCE FUNDS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS
THERETO.
Regulations under Porto Rican Compensation Law presumed to give em-
ployer notice of premium assessments. Camunas V. Porto Rico Ry..
Light & Power Co. (U, S.)
$384. AMOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF AWARD.
385.- DISABILITY BENEFITS.
Where coal miner was prevented from earning average amount earned by
miners because of conditions existing in room where he worked and not
through lack of industry or inability, compensation will be based on
average amount earned by miners doing similar work and not on actua!
amount earned by injured. Centralia Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm. (Ill.)..
Where employee had earned as much or more since injury as he was earn-
ing at time of injury, and it did not appear that he was unable to work
in employment in which he was engaged at time of injury, award of one-
half difference between weekly earnings at time of accident and wage
he was able to earn thereafter in same employment must be set aside.
Woodcock v. Dodge Bros. (Mich.)
ilure to find work is no ground for compensation, if failure has origin in
general business conditions and slackness of demand for labor. Jordan
v. Decorative Co. (N. Y.)
Declarations of claimant that she could not work under conditions which
involved mere personal friction between her and her superior, unsupport-
ed by other evidence, were insufficient to show that she was not able to
perform services required of her. Schapiro v. Wanamaker (N. Y.)..... 623
Compensation not defeated by ability to perform similar skilled work for
same wages. Geis v. Packard Motor Car Co. (Mich)..
Evidence that claimant had been employed as foreman and inspector, which
was skilled work, and that he was still unable to perform duties of that
employment because of injuries received, though he had been employed
by the employer since injury, heid to sustain finding that he was still dis-
abled. Myers v. Wadsworth Mfg. Co. (Mich.)
Compensation for both temporary and permanent disability is left to judg-
ment of commission.-Hysterical condition is element of compensation
Moray v. Indust. Comm. (Utah)
Wages paid after injury are not conclusive of question of compensable dis-
ability. London Guar, & Ace. Co. v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Colo.).
"Disability" means impairment or lessening of earning capacity, and not loss
of member or permanent loss of use thereof. Moses v. Nat'l Union Coal
Mining Co. (Iowa.)
Injury to arm, hand, or finger.
Injury to leg or foot.
Loss of arm, hand, or finger.
Method of computing compensation for partial disability defined. Western
Indemnity Co. v. Milam (Tex.)
Injured employee, who was totally disabled from performing services of his
skilled occupation by injury, is entitled to compensation for total dis-
ability, though his employer had put him on the pay roll in former ca-
pacity and paid him the same wages for light work as messenger. Geis
v. Packard Motor Car Co. (Mich.)
Loss of arm, hand, or finger.
(7).— Loss of leg or foot.
Compensation for loss of foot and total disability held properly awarded.
Pullman Car Lines v. Riley (Del.)
Injured was not entitled to recover for partial incapacity after date on which
he became able to earn in suitable employment amount equal to that
earned before injury.-Employee is "physically able to work" when he
can do so without seriously endangering his life or health. Voight v.
Indust, Comm. (TH.)
Compensation for partial disability runs from date of injury. Nieminen v.
Isle Royal Copper Co. (Mich.)
409
Claimant is under no incapacity when able to pursue former occupation.-If
employee's injury prevented his pursuing former employment and ability
to labor in other pursuits was impaired by injury, this circumstance was
important in determining amount of wages he could earn and should be
taken into account in determining what compensation should be awarded
him because of diminished capacity to work.-In awarding compensation
for partial incapacity to work, reduction in earning capacity occasioned
by general business conditions, and not due to injury, cannot be con-
sidered. If injured employee could not return to former employment
because of business conditions, and sought for or secured employment
|