Seggebruch v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.)
Sawtells v. Ekenberg Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.)
Schimmel v. Detroit Pressed Steel Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.)
Schroeder & Daly Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin
Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co et al. (Mich. S. C.)
Simpson v. Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. (N. Y. S. C.)
Simpson v. New Jersey Stone & Tile Co. (N J. C. E. A.)
Smith v. Kaw Boiler Works Co. (Kan. S. C.).
Soderstrom v. Curry & Whythe, Inc. (Minn. S. C.).
Southern Surety Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Iowa S. C.) 710
Sperduto v. New York City Interborough Ry. Co. (N. Y. C. A.)..... 123
Spiegel's House Furnishing Co. v. Industrial Commission et al (Ill.
S. C.)
State Acc. Fund et al. v. Jacobs (Md. C. A.).
State ex rel. Great Northern Express Co. v. District Court of Ramsey
County. (Minn. S. C.)
State ex rel. Melrose Granite Co. et al. v. District Court, Seventh
Judicial Dist., et al. (Minn. S. C.)...
State ex rel. Nelson v. District Court of Wabasha County et al.
(Minn. S. C.)
State ex rel. Niessen et al. v. District Court of Ramsey County et al.
(Minn. S. C.)
State ex rel. Radisson Hotel et al. v. District Court of Hennepin
County. (Minn. S. C.)
State ex rel. Rinker v. District Court of Pennington County, Four-
teenth Judicial Dist. et al.
State Industrial Commission, In re.
State Industrial Commission of New
[N. Y.] Munic. Ct.).
Steel & Iron Mongers, Inc., v. Bonnite Insulator Co. (N. J. C. Ch.).. 121
Sterling v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited (two cases)
(Mass. S. J. C.)..........
Stewart v. Knickerbocker Ice Co. (N. Y. C. A.)
Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co. v. Tomich. (U. S. S. C.)
Sweeting v. American Knife Co. et al. (N. Y. C. A.).
Swift & Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.)
Swift & Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.)
Talbot v. Industrial Insurance Commission (Wash. S. C.).
Tazewell Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.).
Temescal Rock Co. et al v. Industrial Accident Commission et al.
(Cal. S. C.)
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Boudreaux et al. (Tex. C. C A.).. 563
Thomas v. Otis Elevator Co. et al. (Neb. S. C.).
Thompson v. Foundation Co. et al. (N. Y. S. C.)
Town of Danvers, In re (Mass S. J. C.)..
Town of Lee, In re (Mass. S. J. C.).
Travelers' Ins. Co., In re (Mass. S. J. C.)..
Trouton v. M. J. Sheehy Ice Co. et al.
U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Davis. (Tex. C. C. A.)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et
United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co. v. Industrial Accident Com-
mission of California (Cal. S. C)..
al. v. Wickline (Neb. S. C.) 618
Villalobos v. Cudahy Packing Co. (Kan. S. C.).
Vissaggio, In re. (N. Y. S. C.)
Weidner v. Northway Motor Mfg. Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.)
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Smithers. (Ky. C. A.)
Western Pac R. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California
Zajkowski v. American Steel & Wire Co. (U. S. C. C. A.)
Zinken v. Melrose Granite Co. et al. (Minn. S. C.).
Zoladtz et al. v. Detroit Auto Specialty Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.)
From July to December, 1919, inclusive.
(B) STATUTORY REGULATION.
§ 11. Validity of statutes in general.
Rules of law governing employer's responsibility may be altered by legislature
in public interest-if such changes are not arbitrary and unreasonable
liability may be imposed on employer without fault for injury-that act
allows compensation for pain as in tort cases does not render invalid.
Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer (U. S.)...
(C) TERMINATION AND DISCHARGE.
30. Grounds for discharge.
Generally, employee's disobedience of master's orders justifies peremptory dis-
missal. Rogers v. Rogers (Ind.)
III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO SERVANT.
(A) NATURE AND EXTENT IN GENERAL.
§ 88 (4). Volunteers in general.
In responding to request of servant for assistance in doing work, decedent,
not employee of any of the contractors, was not mere volunteer or licensee.
Sandon v. Kendall (Mass.).....
$95. Unlawful employment of services.
Minor, by misrepresenting age when employed to operate machine in violation
of law, is not estopped from asserting that employment was unlawful.
Lesko v. Liondale Bleach Dye & Print Works (N. J.)..........
(B) TOOLS, MACHINERY, APPLIANCES, AND PLACES FOR WORK.
107 (2). Places for work in general.
Whether or not place is reasonably safe depends on character of work. Lam-
berg v. Central Consumers Co. (Ky.)..
(C) METHODS OF WORK, RULES, AND ORDERS.
136. Knowledge of danger.
Mining Company, not applying brakes to empty coal cars to prevent them
running down grade was not liable to track-layer riding on loaded mule-
drawn car with which empties collided unless he had right to be on
car and company was charged with anticipating his presence there.
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Smithers (Ky.)..
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=-xgWAAAAYAAJ&hl=el&output=html_text&pg=PT7&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:LCCN19018339&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0htlJb7Ysn6wvdCCmp56F-9j_cew&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=205,887,388,17)
Employer's rule forbidding employees, except those in operation of motor,
to ride on locomotive or trip of loaded cars, held to apply only to motors
or motor-drawn cars, not to single car drawn by mule. West Kentucky
Coal Co. v. Smithers (Ky.)....
192. Existence of relation of master and servant in general.
§ 192 (1). In general.
If decedent undertook to assist servant in performing services which it was
servant's duty to perform under orders of defendant's representative,
jury could find decedent stood in relation of fellow servant while so en-
gaged and did not become temporary servant-mere fact that servant
acting under general instructions of employer rendered assistance to
representative of defendant did not constitute him a fellow servant of
representative. Sandon v. Kendall (Mass.)....
(F) RISKS ASSUMED BY SERVANT.
204. Statutory provisions.
204 (2). Violation of statutes or ordinances.
Minor employed to operate machine in violation of law cannot be held to
assume ordinary risks of employment. Lesko v. Liondale Bleach Dye &
Print Works (N. J.).
Case which by allegation and proof is brought within act is controlled by
act although its provisions may not have been referred to in pleadings.
Lusk v. Bandy (Okla.)...
285 (1). In general.
Employee's testimony held not open to construction justifying verdict for
defendant that injury was caused by ankle having turned "through no
defect in floor." Lamberg v. Central Consumers Co. (Ky.).............
Where evidence is equal as to negligence of employer, direction of verdict for
him is proper. Lamberg v. Central Consumers Co. (Ky.)...........
286 (3). Ways and places for work in general.
In action for injuries while lifting heavy cask, whether employer was neg-
ligent, floor being rough and uneven, and whether injury proximately re-
sulted from negligence, held for jury. Lamberg v. Central Consumers
Co. (Ky.)
(A) NATURE AND GROUNDS OF MASTER'S LIABILITY.
§ 346. NATURE AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.
Where act is elective as to both employer and employee, payment of com-
pensation is not performance of statutory duty but of conditions of act
read into contract of hiring. Pierce v. Beking Van & Storage Co. (Ia.)
Intent of act in specifying extrahazardous occupations was to secure such
employees greater protection than by previous law. Seggebruch v. In-
dustrial Commission (Illa.)
Act is constitutional in method for exclusive determination of issues of fact
in absence of fraud by chairman of commission. Mailman v. Record
Foundry & Machine Co. (Me.)..
247. CONTITUTIONALITY OF STAJUTES.
Statute held constitutional in limiting application to injured employees en-
gaged in manual and mechanical labor. Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Mat-
thews. (Ariz)
Act, making rights and remedies thereunder exclusive, does not undertake
to fix the price of manual labor contrary to state constitution. Day v.
Louisiana Central Lumber Co (La.)
Statute providing, in case of facial or head disfigurement, commission may
make award not to exceed certain sum, is constitutional as far as facial
disfigurement is related to loss of earnings. Sweeting v. American Knife
Co. (N. Y.) .....
.... 126
State statute giving remedy for injuries or death of employee in maritime
work is not in violation of federal constitution. Stewart v. Knickerbocker
Ice Co. (N. Y.)..
Act, in attempting to authorize award against third person, not employer, is
unconstitutional. Perry v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
350
Act held constitutional. Fish's Case (Me.)...
to be clearly unreasonable and
Attacks on compensation and liability acts, based on their novelty, wisdom
and policy, cannot be considered by the courts-no person has vested right
to have unchanged existing rules of law concerning employer's liability-
state act, although imposing liability on employer beyond common law is
not invalid-those attacking such act on ground of unconstitutionality
have burden of demonstrating it
arbitrary-provision of act for assessment of proximate damages by jury
is not invalid-employer cannot question validity of law on ground that
damages are not disturbed by installment payments-constitutionality of
act is not open to attack on grounds not affecting employers so attacking-
act not unconstitutional on theory it might be extended to nonhazardous
industries-act not unconstitutional on grounds that benefits might be
extended to those not nearly related to nor dependent upon employee-
although employee has election to proceed under state or federal act or
common law, this is not unconstitutional. Arizona Copper Co. v. Ham-
mer (U. S.)...
Act held enforceable by maritime workers. Ruddy v. Morse Dry Dock & Rep.
Co. (N. Y.)
It was within power of legislature to provide in act that liability in death
cases shall be exclusive except in certain cases. Basso v. John Clark &
Son (N. Y.)..
Enactment of act did not exhaust authority conferred upon legislature which
could amend or repeal-contract of indemnity entered into between em-
ployer and insurer since adoption of statute are subject to exercise by
legislature of power so conferred upon it to compel employers of labor
to contribute a state fund or to impose further conditions or restrictions
upon privilege of electing to pay compensation direct-act is valid and
constitutional exercise of authority conferred upon legislature. Thornton
v. Duffy (Ohio)..
Provision of federal act that it is applicable to certain intrastate commerce
injuries is not unconstitutional. Archibald v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
(Wash.)
Act held constitutional-not open to attack as violating specific injunctions
of constitution.. Portion of act's title referring to means and methods
of enforcing liability includes subrogation provisions which are not
open to attack because not included in title. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of
N. Y. v. Llewellyn Iron Works (Cal.)..
1 348. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF STATUTES IN GENERAL.
Act does not repeal by implication city charter provisions for compensation
of injured fireman. Markley v. City of St. Paul. (Minn.)
Compensation law is intended for benefit of workman and should be construed
so as to carry out that intent. Elks v. Conn. (Ia)
Act is highly remedial and is to be construed as such statutes are. Pierce
v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (Iowa).
Terms of act should be construed with utmost liberality of which legally
capable. American Indemn. Co. v. Dinkins (Tex.).
Rights of injured employee are measured by act in force at time of injury.
Hyman Bros. Box & Label Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
In determining whether injured servant should have proceeded in action for
negligence or under act, law in force at time of accident governs. Morris
v. Muldoon (N. Y.)...
Rulings of commission and courts of England are persuasive where language
of statute is not materially dissimilar. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v.
Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)....
Act changes manner of procedure and practice but did not affect vested
rights of parties to proceeding pending at time of enactment-act is_to
be interpreted to remedy ills intended to be remedied. Bowman v. In-
dustrial Comm. (Ill.)
RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES.
Where employee in extrahazardous occupation was injured before amendment
providing payment for attendant, an allowance commencing when amend-
ment took effect did not give amendment a retroactive effect. Talbot
v. Indust. Ins. Comm. (Wash.)..
351.
RIGHT TO ELECT, AND EFFECT OF ELECTION IN GENERAL.
Employee, injured while in maritime work, may come into state courts for
common law damages, despite act. Simpson v. Atlantic Coast Shipping
Co. (N. Y.).
Where longshoreman, loading steamship from lighter, was thrown into water
and drowned when companionway broke, his intestate might elect to take
award under act or bring action at common law for damages.
Dziengelewsky v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc. (N. Y.)..
There is no common-law liability for injuries to which the act is applicable,
unless the employer has failed to provide the required insurance. Ruddy
v. Morse Dry Dock & Rep. Co. (N. Y.).
Where defendant, in action for negligently causing death, has complied with
act, benefits of such law are exclusive and administrator may not bring
action under Code. Basso v. John Clark & Son (N. Y.)
The Porto Rico Act, which is obligatory upon employees, held also compul-
sory as to employers. Camunas v. New York & P. R. S. S. Co. (U. S.)... 673
Employee waives common-law right to recover for injuries, unless when em-
ployer elects to come under act, employee gives him required notice
claiming common-law rights, even though employer fails to comply with
part of act. Gilbert v. Wire Goods Co. (Mass.).....
INJURIES NOT PROVIDED FOR IN COMPENSATION ACT.
Where stevedore is negligently injured on vessel, but dies from injuries on
shore, tort is maritime and remedy is in rem in admiralty, or common-
Jaw remedy and act gives no remedy-election to proceed under act could
not preclude common-law action. Liverani v. John T. Clark & Son (N. Y.). 547
§ 354.
RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THIRD PERSON.
Where employee is injured in course of employment by actionable negligence
of third party, statutory remedy accrues to him or dependents for com-
pensation against employer and common-law remedy against third party,
though he cannot proceed against both. If he elects the former, he
waives the latter and employer is subrogated. Carlson v. Minneapolis
St. Ry. Co. (Minn.)...
RIGHT OF ACTION BY EMPLOYEE'S PARENTS.
Father who received minor son's wages was bound by provision of act accepted
by son and himself-was subject to act as prescribing sole rule of com-
pensation and had no right of action under common-law. Buonfiglio v.
Neumann & Co. (N. J.)......
COMMON-LAW DEFENSES ABOLISHED.
If accident occurred after act became effective and employer had not ac-
cepted provisions, defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk
are not available to him. Lamberg v. Central Consumers Co. (Ky.).....
Employer, which had not elected to come under act at time of accident, can-
not defend on contributory negligence and assumption of risk, and can-
not set up defense of employee's violation of rules as proximate cause of
injuries although contributory negligence. West Kentucky Coal Co. v.
Smithers (Ky.)
Excavation of ditch by interstate pipe line company for laying gas pipe is
no part of its commercial business, but is work in the performance of
which it is subject unconditionally to provisions of act and if in default
is liable for injury to employees in such work caused by negligence of
fellow employee, and is denied right of common-law defenses of fellow-
servant, assumption of risk and contributory negligence. Roberts v.
United Fuel Gas Co. (W. Va.)..
Statute saving to claimants rights and remedies under state acts does not
abolish admiralty or common-law remedies, but merely gives injured em-
ployee additional remedy-stevedore injured in ship may sue employer,
|