used in his work,27 or doing his employer's work at home.28 It does not preclude an injury from having been received in the course of the employment that the employé was injured by fellow work

of going to a police officer for protection and reinforcement. Ocean Shore Railroad Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 209.

Rudder v.

Where an assistant foreman was assaulted by two workmen whom he had just reprimanded for not doing their work properly, the accident arose in the course of his employment. Yume v. Knickerbocker Portland Cement Co., 3 N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 353 (affirmed in 169 App. Div. 905, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1151). A foreman whose duty in part was to enforce discipline, injured while going to stop a fight between two of his men, was injured in the course of employment. In re Warton, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 315.

27 Where a driver in the employ of a brewery was injured from being struck by a coemployé while he was unharnessing and caring for his horses, he was injured in the course of his employment. In re Heitz, 218 N. Y. 148, 112 N. E. 750, affirming 155 N. Y. Supp. 1112. Where a teamster was injured while putting his horse in its stall after having unhitched it from the truck, he was injured in the course of his employment. Smith v. Price, 168 App. 421, 153 N. Y. Supp. 221. Where one engaged as teamster, whose special duty was to care for his team, feed same, and make deliveries to customers of the employer, after his day's work took his team to the stable, and while unharnessing and feeding the team, passed behind the team of a fellow employé and was kicked by one of the horses, the injury arose in the course of his employment, and he was entitled to compensation. Gylfe v. Suburban Ice Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 167.

An employe's duty was to drive a light delivery wagon and when not so employed to work in the shop of the employer. It was also a part of his duty to take care of the horses which he drove and to take the horse and wagon to his home in the suburbs on Saturday afternoon, in order to give the horse Sunday pasture and to drive him back to the city on Monday morning. He was injured on a Monday morning, while caring for the horse, preparatory to driving to the city. The Commission held that the injury was received in the course of employment (In re James Chase, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 53), as it was, also, where a driver's helper, a part of whose duty was to care for horses used in the business, was injured while taking care of such horses (In re Eva I. Craig, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 38).

28 Where claimant worked by the day for a merchant tailor, doing the work in his own home, and being injured there, he was injured "in the course of his employment away from the plant of his employer," and entitled to compensation. (Wk. Comp. Act, § 2, group 38; section 3, subd. 4) Fiocca v. Dillon, The Bulletin, N. Y., vol. 1, No. 6, p. 13.

man,20 or bitten by a dog,3° or was attempting to escape from a danof which he has been warned.31

ger

§ 106. Term of employment

The term of employment is not necessarily identical with the time during which services are being performed for the employer. But where, by the terms of the employment, an employé is to be ready at any hour of the day or night to perform certain duties, it does not follow that every accidental injury which he may receive during the course of the twenty-four hours is compensable. To have all the requisites for compensation present, it is essential that

29 Where an employé, known to be ticklish, is carrying a bucket up a stairway, and a passing fellow employé playfully gives him a poke in the ribs with a newspaper, causing him to turn around and accidentally slip and fall down the steps, such accident happened in the course of employment. Flint v. Coronado Beach Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 395.

The injury was received in the course of the employment: Where the decedent, while at work on one of the lower floors of a building in the course of erection, was killed by the falling of a piece of plank from one of the upper stories, presumably caused by one of the workmen of the principal contractor, who was working on the same building. Biddinger v. Champion Iron Co., vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 70. Where an employé, while engaged in performing work he was employed to perform, was assaulted and killed by a fellow employé. In re Margaret M. Clark, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 125. Where a stenographer was feloniously shot and killed by a fellow employé while she was taking shorthand notes dictated by her employer. In re Anna Schwenlein, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 136. Where a foreman, while in the discharge of his regular duties, was shot by an employé whom he had discharged. In re Chas. F. Roll, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 63.

An employé whose arm was broken, without negligence or misconduct on his part, by being struck by an angry foreman, was injured in the course of his employment. In re Flemmings, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 225.

30 Where a workman was bitten by a dog while he was engaged in the work he was employed to perform, he was injured in the "course of employment" (In re Wm. Miller, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 46), as also was a workman bitten by a mad dog while attending to his duties (In re Bailey, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 297).

81 Bode v. Shreve & Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 6.

HON.COMP.-23

he be, in fact, discharging some duty in the course of his employment.32 The term of employment includes time spent in traveling on the employer's business,33 and a reasonable latitude of acts not in furtherance of the business, but done during working time.34 A

32 Gallup v. City of Pomona, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 242.

33 Where the frost-bite which produced a lesion causing erysipelas and death was received by the employé while he was performing his duties of soliciting insurance and collecting premiums, such duties requiring him to make long rides without regard to weather conditions, the injury arose in the course of his employment. Larke v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320.

While a salesman is actually engaged in traveling in his employer's business and in the line of duty, the risks incident to the various modes of conveyance he may take are incidental to the employment, without regard to the hour of the day when the risks are incurred. Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Spaulding & Bros., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 575. Where a moving picture actress was sent out from the studio with the other members of the company to produce a scene a half mile away, and was injured while returning to the studio on horseback to put on her street clothes, such injury was received in the course of her employment. Jansen v. Balboa Amusement Producing Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 477. Where it was the duty of an employé of a water company to inspect the distributing system of the company, and remedy defects found by or reported to him, immediately or when needed, in his own judgment, regardless of the hours of service, and he had received a report of trouble in the company's pipe lines and had started to search for the defect, but was injured by an automobile accident, while on the way, the injury was received in the course of his employment. Phillips v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 580. Where a civil engineer, sent from San Francisco to Eureka to survey a quarry and bring his notes back to the home office for inspection and consultation, was drowned on the wrecking of the steamship Hanalei, while he was returning to San Francisco, the accident arose in the course of his employment and is compensable. Hutchinson v. Pacific Engineering & Construction Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 600.

34 Where a peach cutter in a cannery stepped momentarily from her place of work to talk to a fellow employé, and while doing so was injured by unguarded machinery, the accident occurred while the employé was in the course of her employment. The industrial orbit of the work being done must include such reasonable latitude as is consistent with common practice, common sense, and the work to be done. London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Romberger, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 38. Where a man, hired at a fixed salary to make the regular collections of rentals and premiums due to an established

workman is injured in the course of employment where she has finished one kind of work upstairs and is going downstairs to begin work for which she is paid in a different way, and is injured on the stairs while in transit.35 Where it is the duty of an employé to go from one job to another 3 or to places away from the employer's office and then to return thereto to make a report, he is, at all such times, acting in the course of his employment.37 The same is true of a delivery boy injured from being thrown from a bicycle furnished by his employer after he has called at his home and taken lunch, and while he is on his way to make a delivery.3 "Course

38

real estate and insurance agent, had his working hours fixed from 8 a. m. to 6 p. m., but did not require all of the time for making collections, and, though the employer controlled his whole working day, he allowed him to solicit new business in the time not required for the regular collecting, and paid him for such soliciting a percentage of the profit therefrom, while soliciting new business he was an employé and acting in the course of his employment, and was entitled to the benefits of the act when injured. Trobitz v. Cameron, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 550.

The employé was engaged by a government official on one day to proceed to a certain point on the following day, carrying with him for a distance of eight miles certain tools and equipment of the government which were necessary for the work to be done. Before reaching the destination the employé was injured by one of the tools he was carrying. He was injured in the course of his employment, which began when he started on the journey with the tools. In re Connor, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 330.

35 Wheeler v. Contoocook Mills Corp., 77 N. H. 551, 94 Atl. 265.

36 Where a workman was hired to go around trimming trees, and had on his person at the time of the injury a list of places to go, one after the other, and was run down by an automobile while going from one job to another, the accident arose in the course of his employment. Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co. (Mich.) 158 N. W. 851.

A workman, taking a trip on a barge furnished by his employer, in order that he might be ready to assist in unloading the cargo when it arrived at the destination, was injured in the course of his employment where he fell off the barge and was drowned, even though he had no duties to perform during the voyage. W. R. Rideout Co. v. Pillsbury (Cal.) 159 Pac. 435.

37 Turgeon v. Fox Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 68.

38 (Wk. Comp. Act, pt. 2, § 1) Beaudry v. Watkins (Mich.) 158 N. W. 16.

39

of employment" may include a case where an employé returns for his pay 3 or tools,4° or is working overtime, or endeavoring to save his master's property," but not where an employé, after being suspended or discharged, goes to the place of the accident, in violation of orders, 42 or in his own interests, and not the interests of his employer, or returns to the place of employment after discharge

43

39 Employés going to get their wages, or returning from getting them, have been held to have been injured in the course of their employment in cases where a collier, who was knocked down and injured by an engine on his employer's premises when he went for his wages, at 12:30 p. m. which was the proper time, he having quit work at 5 a. m. (Lowry v. Sheffield Coal Co., Ltd. [1909] 1 B. W. C. C. 1, C. A.); where a mill worker, whose contract of service ended on Wednesday, went to the mill on Friday to get her pay, as was the custom in the trade, and met with an accident while leaving (Riley v. Holland & Sons, Ltd. [1911] 4 B. W. C. C. 155, C. A.); and where a workman who was required by his employers to go to a certain place in order to get his wages, and paid for the time spent in going and returning, got on a wrong tram car on his way back, and was struck while getting off by a passing car (Nelson v. Belfast Corporation [1909] 1 B. W. C. C. 158, C. A.).

40 A miner, who was injured while going down the mine, with permission, to fetch his tools, several days after his employment had ceased, was injured in the course of his employment. Molloy v. South Wales Anthracite Colliery Co. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. 65, C. A.

41 Munn v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill. 70, 113 N. E. 110. The fact that at the time of the accident the workman's service for the day, according to the terms of his employment, had ended, did not require a reversal of a finding that the accident was received in the course of his employment. Id.

42 A collier, who had been suspended, and instead of going to the pit bottom remained, contrary to orders, in a "pass-by," and two hours later met with an accident there, was not injured in the course of his employment. Smith v. South Normanton Colliery Co., Ltd. (1903) 5 W. C. C. 14, C. A. (Act of 1897).

43 Where a collier was dissatisfied with his pay note on Saturday, and, after resolving not to resume work until the note was altered, returned on Monday to see the undermanager, who refused to yield, and was knocked down by a wagon and killed when he was about to leave the premises, he was not within the course of his employment, having gone to the mine in his own interests, and not in those of his employer. Phillips v. Williams, 4 B. W. C. C. 143.