There must be a line beyond which the liability of the employer cannot continue, and the question where that line is to be drawn in each case is a question of fact." Where an engine driver when going off duty has to report himself at the station which can only be reached by walking for some distance down the line, and while so doing is killed by a down train which to his knowledge has been signaled, after passing by a few yards the first available egress from the line, a footpath leading to a gate not always unlocked, he is killed in the course of his employment.70 In an English case the court held that, although there might be cases where the employment of a workman ceased so soon as he left his work, yet a commercial traveler was on a different footing, his business being to travel, and that from the time he left his home on his employers' business, and whilst engaged therein and until he returned to his home he was serving in their employment.1 In a Massachusetts case the employé, a traveling salesman, was a passenger on a Boston elevated car on the day of the injury, and intended to meet a customer at a certain point. He abandoned this intention, however, and decided to go home. After passing the point where he at first intended to leave the car and meet the customer, and before he arrived home, he was injured. Suit was first brought against the Boston Elevated Railway Company and a decision filed against the claimant. While the case was pending, on * Smith v. South Normantown Colliery Co., Ltd. (1903) 5 W. C. C. 14, C. A. (Act of 1897). Where an engineer, after leaving his engine and turning in his time slip, went on down the tracks for several hundred feet, and across a public highway, and was then struck by a train and killed, the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. Ames v. New York Central R. R. Co., The Bulletin, N. Y., vol. 1, No. 12, p. 17. 70 Todd v. Caledonian Railway Co. (1899) 1 F. 1047, Ct. of Sess. (Act of 1897). 71 Dickinson v. Barmak, Ltd. (1908) L. T. Jo. 403, C. A. A commercial traveler, out canvassing, who, intending to return home, missed his way to the railway station in the dark, fell into a canal, and drowned, sustained an accident in the course of his employment. Id. exceptions, the employé claimed compensation under the statute. His expenses, from the time of leaving home until he returned thereto, were paid by his employer. The Commission held that he was not entitled to compensation."2 § 109. Premises of employer In applying the rule that the employment is not limited by the exact time when the workman reaches the scene of his labor and begins it nor when he ceases, but includes a reasonable time, space, and opportunity before and after, while he is at or near his place of employment, one of the tests is whether the workman is still on the premises of his employer. This, while often a helpful consideration, is by no means conclusive. A workman might be on the premises of another than his employer, or in a public place, and yet be so close to the scene of his labors, within its zone, environments, and hazards, as to be in effect at the place and under the protection of the act, while, on the other hand, as in case of a railway stretching endless miles across the country, he might be on the premises of his employer, and yet be far removed from where his contract of labor called him. The protection of the law does not extend, except by special contract, beyond the locality, or vicinity, of the place of labor." There are many cases where an accident 72 Muir v. Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp., Ltd., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 172 (decision of Com. of Arb.). 73 Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 20, 148 N. W. 243; Hoskins v. Lancaster, 3 B. W. C. C. 476. In Caton v. Summerlee & M. I. & S. Co., 39 Scotch L. R. 762, it was held that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of a laborer who, at the conclusion of his day's work, was knocked down and killed by a passing engine 230 yards from where he had been working, while walking home along a private railway track belonging to his employer, which many of the men employed at the same place were in the habit of using in going to and from their work. The court there said: "The deceased at the time of the accident had ceased his work, had left the place where he did it, and was on his way home. He had at the time no duty to fulfill to his master, and the master had no duty to fulfill towards him. The relation of mas may arise while a man is on the master's premises, but not engaged in active work, and whether he is there going about the premises in pursuance of the necessities of life, such as eating, drinking, respiration, and other things that need not be mentioned, and is not doing anything that is either wrong or against his contract or outside his employment, in such a case, no doubt, the accident must be treated as one arising out of his employment. It has been so held in cases in both Scotland and England. But, on the other hand, if a man is doing something unlawful, or if his accident is due to something that is being transacted between him and other people with which the master has nothing to do, such facts might ter and servant had ended for the day, he having fulfilled his work and left the place where his work was being done." An employé, injured while on his employer's premises, may be entitled to compensation, though he was not actually engaged in the performance of the work he was employed to do. In re Katharina Schatz, Vol. I, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 60. In Barnard v. H. Garber & Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 572, where an aged workman fell on the steps of his employer's establishment when entering to begin work in the morning, on account of their slippery condition, it was held the injury arose in the course of the employment. In Penfield v. Town of Glastonbury, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 637, where a janitor was injured by slipping on the ice while passing from the coal shed to the schoolhouse, which his duties required him to heat, while on the premises for the purpose of rebuilding a fire, the injury was held to have arisen in the course of his employment. An employé of a railroad company, who entered his employer's premises at a station 21⁄2 miles from where his gang was working, and who was killed while on his way down the tracks to join them, was not killed in the course of his employment. Dowling v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., The Bulletin, N. Y., vol. 1, No. 10, p. 17. Where a miner, at the end of his day's work, changed his clothes, and, still carrying a miner's lamp, started towards the bottom of the shaft with the intention of ascending to the top of the mine, and about 200 feet from the room where he had been at work and about one-half mile from the bottom of the shaft one of his eyes was put out by coming in contact with a piece of slate hanging from the roof, it was held his duties had not ended until he left the mine, and that the accident arose in the course of his employment. Sedlock v. Carr Coal Mining & Mfg. Co. 98 Kan. 680, 159 Pac. 9. HON.COMP.-24 raise an exception." It must not be assumed that the protection of the Compensation Acts extends to workmen on any part of the employers' land, whatever the distance away from the workman's actual work; each case must depend upon its own facts as to the reasonable interval of time and space during which the employment lasts. If a man goes from his working place to another 74 Mackinnon v. Miller (1910) 2 B. W. C. C. 70. The employé on her way to luncheon was injured while going down a flight of stairs leading from the third floor to the second floor of the building in which she worked, there being no other way by which she could reach the street, except down the stairway on which she was injured. It was held that, since it was a necessary incident of her employment to use the flight of stairs upon which the injury occurred, the injury arose in the course of her employment. Sundine v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 833 (decision of Indus. Acc. Bd., affirmed by Sup. Jud. Ct., 218 Mass. 1, 105 N. E. 433, L. R. A. 1916A, 318). 75 Graham v. Barr and Thornton (1913) 6 B. W. C. C. 412, Ct. of Sess.; Hoskins v. Lancaster (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. 476, C. A. An employé comes under the protection of the Workmen's Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act when he enters the premises of his employer, and leaves such protection when he leaves such premises. This is true, even though the accident occur outside of working hours, since the employé must necessarily arrive shortly before the time of commencing work, and depart shortly after the hour for quitting. Oldham v. Southwestern Surety Insurance Co., 1 Cal. A. C. Dec. 258. While, as a general rule, an employé accidentally injured when on the way to and from the place of employment cannot claim compensation, on entering or leaving by the usual route and means provided by the employer, is entitled to compensation for accidental injury, except when he has loitered on the premises, or has not left the premises by the usual means and route. Gardiner v. State of California Printing Office, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 21. An employé comes under the protection of the Compensation Act at the time that he reaches his employer's premises in the morning, and remains thereunder until he leaves them at the close of his day's work, but his risks in going and coming are the risks of the commonalty, and not of his employment. In this case an injury sustained by the applicant by a collision with a street car while he was going to work in the morning and before reaching his employer's premises is held not to be compensable. Zbinden v. Union Oil Co. of California, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 616. Where a teamster, who reported for duty each morning at the stables of the defendants on the exposition grounds, was accidentally injured one morning after he had entered through the exposition gate and into the grounds, but before place in the works, he must get back to his work, and if in going back he meets with an accident, that is an accident arising in the reporting for duty at the stables, the employé was not at the time of the accident in the course of his employment. McInerney v. Palmer & McBryde, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 655. Where an employé is given home work to be performed at her residence, and on returning to her place of employment on the following day with a bundle of work stumbles upon a public sidewalk not upon the premises of the employer, sustaining serious injury and disability, such accident does not arise in the course of her employment. Malott v. Healey, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 103. An employé, who lost his life in a burning building in which he was employed, was killed "in the course of his employment," and his dependents are entitled to compensation. In re Harriet Horn, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 35. An employé killed while operating a derrick on the premises of his employer, which was a part of the duties under his contract of employment, was killed "in the course of his employment." In re Anna King, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 37. Federal Act. The following have been held to have been injured in the course of their employment: A fireman employed in the Canal Zone, injured while performing service outside territory under control of the United States. In re Nellis, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 286. A workman in the Canal Zone, injured while following a customary path on his way to work, on the premises of his employer or in the immediate vicinity thereof. In re Chambers, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 291. An employé walking along railroad track of Reclamation Service when going to his work, who was struck by a train of that service and killed. In re Gonzales, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 333. A workman who fell and was injured while going through the main gate of a navy yard. In re Guerin, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 324. A workman who was on his way home after working hours, and was injured while still on the government premises. In re Bernard, Dec. 12, 1913, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 323. But an employé who was a cook in the river and harbor work, and who was drowned while going to work, crossing the river in a launch of a private party, was not in the course of employment. In re Ware, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 335. It was held that the injury was received in the course of the employment where a miner was on his way to the doorway of a horizontal passage which led into the mine, and slipped and broke his leg on rails on the premises leading thereto (Mackenzie v. Coltness Iron Co., Ltd. [1904] 6 F. 8, Ct. of Sess. [Act of 1897]), and where a collier was injured when passing through an iron gate on the employer's premises seeking to reach a lamp room 150 yards away, where he was to start work (Hoskins v. Lancaster [1910] 3 B. W. C. C. 476, C. A.). But the holdings were to the contrary where a workman while on his way to work was crossing some vacant land owned by his employers, and slipped on some ice a quarter of a mile from the place of his work (Gil |