Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Election.-Where master had not elected to come under Workmen's Com-
pensation Act, the common-law defenses were foreclosed to him so that
where servant was injured by falling down stairway, allegations of
answer that plaintiff was familiar with stairway, knew it was usually
lighted, etc., come within defenses of assumption of risk and contribu-
tory negligence. Wulff v. Bossler (Mich.).
Election.-Relator's husband a resident of North Dakota entered into con-
tract of employment with Minnesota corporation and contemplated
soliciting business in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere, auto-
mobile furnished him for use in his work accidentally overturned at
point in North Dakota and he was killed, Minnesota act is applicable.
State ex rel. Chambers et al. v. District Court, Hennepin County, et al.
(Minn.)
Election.-Townships if engaged in any hazardous occupation enumerated
in paragraph b of section 3. are conclusively presumed to have elected
to provide and pay compensation under the act, unless they have elected
to the contrary. McLaughlin, Commissioner of Highways v. Industrial
Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)
Election.-Under the act providing for election between remedies when
employee is injured or killed by negligence of another not in same em-
ploy and for subrogation if compensation is paid, a widow with de-
pendent child may for herself and child make an election-statute as
amended was merely clarified and not substantially altered, by providing
for election by minors or their parents or guardians as the commission
determines. Hanke v. New York Consol. R. Co. (N. Y.).
Election. That defendant coal corporation had elected not to pay compen-
sation under the act would deprive it of certain defenses, but would
not relieve plaintiff employee from proving negligence. Wendzinski
v. Madison Coal Corp. et al. (III.) . . .
Election. Though defendant master had elected to come under the act it
was not applicable to plaintiff and he might, despite its provisions, re-
cover in action at law for injuries sustained. Roszek v.. Bauerle &
Stark Co. (Ill.)..

Election.-To prove that master has elected not to be bound by act servant
must not only show that master has so notfiled board but also that plain-
tiff had received copy thereof, or copy posted where he was employed.
Beveridge v. Illinois Fuel Co. (III.).

Election of Remedies.

Election of Remedies.-Employee injured by third party may proceed against
his employer under Workmen's Compensation Act or pursue his common-
law rights against third party. The act requiring employee to assign
cause of action against third party upon electing to seek compensation,
assignment is effective upon election being made and before award.
Sabatino v. Thomas Crimmins Const. Co. (N. Y.)

Employee.

Employee.-The foreman being engaged in a hazardous occupation was an
"employee". Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Travelers' Ins. Co.
(N. Y.)
Employee.-Journeyman paper hanger, hired by foreman of department
store's wall paper department, and directed by him whenever such work
was required to go to purchaser's residence and hang paper was entitled
to recover compensation for injuries in course of employment though
his name did not appear on payroll-decisive test as to employment is
whether claimed employer retained authority to direct or control the
work or gave it to claimant. In re McAllister (Mass.)..
Employee.-Employees intended to become beneficiaries are, in a general
way those whose remuneration is popularly designated as wages, instead
of salary, whose compensation for service is not munificent, who may
reasonably be presumed to be dependent on wages for sustenance of
themselves and families and whose wives and children may reasonably
be presumed to be dependent on them for support-that one is president or
other executive officer of corporation that employs him is not, standing
alone, sufficient to eliminate him from those regarded as "employees"
within the act-officer of small corporation may serve both as officer
and workman under circumstances making him an "employee."
In re
Raynes (Ind.)
Employee.-Foreman had full authority to hire whatever help he needed
and did hire men admitted to be employees of his employer, and also
hired men and teams for lump sum and on at least one occasion hired
a team separately and also furnished his own team on some occasions
and injured person at time of injury was driving foreman's team. Fore-
man directed drivers to same extent as other employees and intended to
engage injured person as employee of his employer. Foreman made
no profit on injured person's services as driver, the injured person being
paid usual wages for driving and foreman retaining the amount usually
paid for team. Held, injured person was employee of general employer
and not employee of foreman, the contention that foreman was contractor
being without merit. Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com-
mission of California et al. (Cal.)

633

638

504

677

553

952

958

709

675

618

562

499

Employee. Under act which declares "employee" to be synonymous with
servant to include all natural persons, only such employers are made
liable as are themselves engaged in regular business; married women
living with husband in house owned by her, who had been engaged in
remodeling and enlarging house was not engaged in any "business."
Marsh vs. Groner (Pa.)

.....

Employee.-One contracting to paint house for lump sum was not by reason
of such employment agent of employer to hire such labor as he might
see fit and one hired by him was not employee of such contractor's
employer within the meaning of the act. Kackel et al. vs. Serviss
(N. Y.)
Employee.-Plaintiff, though he had not been in defendant's employ for
thirty days at time of accident had not given notice that he elected not
to be subject to provisions of the act-Section 3494-7 subd. 2, declares
that term "employee" shall include every person in service of another
under any contract of hire including minors who are legally permitted to
work-minor was working under child labor permit and was subject to
provisions of act-though plaintiff was required to run elevator, a pro-
hibited employment, he was nevertheless subject to the act, which pro-
vides for treble the amount otherwise recoverable. Lutz vs. Wilmanns
Bros. Co. (Wis.)..
Employee.

134

235

289

870

No relation of employer and employee existing between city and
election board judge at municipal election. City of Los Angeles v.
State Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.) . . . . .
298
Employee.-Under statute defining employee and employer, employee in coal
or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employment is not entitled
to compensation on theory that it was in connection with operation of
vehicle because Wood would ultimaaely be hauled by such vehicle.
Casterline v. Gillen. In re Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
(N. Y.)
Employee. One whose duties were to assist in manufacture and assembling
of machinery was required to travel from place to place was "traveling
employee" entitled to compensation for injuries sustained on public high-
way while traveling in course of employment. London & Lancashire
Indemnity Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.).... 743
Employee.-Facts being undisputed, the question whether painter and
decorator under contract with hotel company was regular employee or
independent contractor was one of law. Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel
Co. et al. (Mich.)..

.1076

Employee. In absence of special agreement "partner" is not an employee.
Cooper v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California et al. (Cal.)........ 899

Employers.

Employers. It must be presumed there was an implied contract made to
do the work which was not tainted with such fatal invalidity as to prevent
the subcontractor from recovering of the general employer of the work:
though the deceased servant did work for a subcontractor under a void
contract made on Sunday by a subcontractor with principal contractor
of general employer, servant was an employee of subcontractor within
the statute and rights of employee are not affected by invalidity of the
subcontract. Wausau Lumber Co. vs. Industrial Commission et al. (Wis.). 140
Employers.-A city, hiring horses, cart and driver from another to carry
material from one place to another as its servants might direct, the
driver being left to deal with the horses in his own way, it is not liable
for such servant's death under S. 1913, c. 807, making the Workmen's
Compensation Act applicable to employees in municipalities. In re Clancy
(Mass)
Employers. Evidence sufficient to warrant finding that employers were jointly
engaged in business of rock crushing. Gray et al. vs. Industrial Com-
mission et al. (Cal.)....

87

151

675

940

Employer. The town represented by its superintendent of highways was
an "employer." Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Travelers' Ins.
Co. (N. Y.)
Employers.-Window cleaner not discharged though told not to work
when unable and unpaid for some work done, relation of master and
servant obtained. Chicago Cleaning Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois
et al. (III.).
Employer. Under statute defining employee and employer, employee in coal
or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employment is not entitled
to compensation on theory that it was in connection with operation of
vehicle because wood would ultimately be hauled by such vehicle.
Casterline v. Gillen. In re Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York N. Y.).. 870
Employers. One who suffers injuries while working for partnership cannot
maintain action against a member of partnership alone on the allegation
that individual defendant was employer. Dupre v. Coleman (La.)...
Employers.-Person who avails himself of use temporarily of services of
servant regularly employed by anotheir person may be liable as master
for acts of such servant, the test being whether in particular service
the service is subject to direction and control of original master or
person to whom he is lent
hired. Arnett v. Hayes Wheel Co.
et al. (Mich.)..
......1061

or

982

Employment, Casual.

(SEE CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.)

Erroneous Award.

(SEE AWARD.)

Existing Disease.

(SEE DISEASE.)

Extrahazardous Employment.

(SEE HAZARDOUS OCCUPATIONS.)

Foreign State.

Foreign State.-Relator's husband, a resident of North Dakota, entered
into contract of employment with Minnesota corporation and contem-
plated soliciting business in Minnesota, North Dakota and elsewhere;
automobile furnished him for use in his work. accidentally overturned
at point in North Dakota and he was killed, Minnesota act is applicable.
State ex rel. Chambers et al. v. District Count, Hennepin County et al.
(Minn.)
Foreign State.-Though employee's original employment in New York had
no specific reference to rendition of services in Connecticut, where his
employer subsequently approached him with offer to go to Connecticut
to work on a job on different terms from those on which he was first
employed and he accepted offer and went to Connecticut and was
fatally injured while working on such job, the Connecticut act applies
as new contract was substituted for the old one. Banks v. Albert D.
Howlett Co. et al. (Conn.)

638

502

Evidence.

48

Evidence.-Admission of hearsay testimony, if error, did not require re-
versal of award, where evidence aside from hearsay, was sufficient to sus-
tain award. Haskell & Barker Car. Co. vs. Brown et al. (Ind.)........
Evidence.-Evidence sufficient to justify board inferring that employee fell
from frost-covered and unguarded trestle and that death was not
caused by apoplexy; it is not necessary for widow to exclude possibility
that husband's death might have been due to apoplectic shock, but merely
to satisfy the board that fair preponderance of evidence that he received
injury resulting in death arising out of employment. In re Uzzio (Mass.). 80
Evidence.-Finding of board is conclusive, if it has substantial support
in evidence and may be reached not only by direct evidence, but by
reasonable inferences, In re Uzzio (Mass.)

Evidence. Where employee stated that while he was sawing timbers, dirt
or sawdust entered eye, that wind was strong, it might be fairly inferred
that sawdust flew in his eye. Dickinson et al. vs. Industrial Board of
Illinois et al. (Ill.)...
Evidence. Dependents need not present proof entirely excluding possibility
that decedent's death was due to diseased heart. Bucyrus Co. vs. Town-
send et al. (Ind.)

Evidence. Exception to board's finding of fact not essential to present ques-
tion of sufficiency of evidence to authorize finding on appeal in Appellate
Court-conflicting evidence exclusive province of board to weigh such
evidence, its conclusion being final and not subject to review. Zeitlow vs.
Smock (Ind.)

Evidence. Finding of fact by commission on conflicting evidence cannot be
set aside. Gray et al. vs. Industrial Commission et al. (Cal.).
Evidence. If no evidence showing relationship of master and servant or from
which it may reasonably be inferred, Appellate Court may apply the
law to such state of facts, despite contrary finding of board. Zietlow
vs. Smock (Ind.)
Evidence. If there is some evidence in support of injury, finding of Indus-
trial Commission in favor of employee must be conclusive-sixteen year
old boy injured while working in basement of retail store where goods
for sale by his employer were temporarily stored was entitled to no com-
pensation, the employer's principal business being sale and not storage.
Walsh vs. F. W. Woolworth Co. (N. Y.)....
Evidence.-Insufficient to support finding that employer had overcome pre-
sumption of negligence arising from rejection of act. Mitchell vs. Des
Moines Coal Co. (Iowa)

80

27

166

174

151

174

261

200

Evidence.-Insufficient to warrant finding that one who contracted to paint a
a house was agent of the latter, with authority to hire such labor as he
might see fit. Kackel VS. Serviss-In re Employers' Liability Assur.
Corp., Limited (N. Y.)...
Evidence.-Sufficient to show Injury by accident to deceased arising out of
employment and that it proximately caused his death. Bucyrus Co. vs.
Townsend et al. (Ind.).

235

166

271

Evidence. Sufficient to show that lifting of can of paint caused bursting of
blood vessel and death of an employee and was within the act. South-
western Surety Ins. Co. vs. Owens et al. (Tex.)..
Evidence. Sustained board's finding that injury resulted in loss of distal
phalanx of little finger of right hand and in permanent total impairment
of ring finger of right hand, that is, rendered it totally and permanently
useless. Kenwood Bridge Co. vs. Stanley (Ind.)..
Evidence. If there is any evidence to support finding, court will not weigh
it or disturb finding-evidence sufficient to support finding that loss of
claimant's eye was due to foreign substance entering eye while he was
working in plant of employer. Riley V. Mason Motor Co. et al. •
(Mich.)
406

Evidence. Fireman after returning from dinner, put on his working clothes
and went to engine and roundhouse and later was found dead, evidence
warranted award. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.)..
Evidence. Supreme Court does not review findings of fact except to de-
termine whether there is any evidence to support award-evidence
need not b direct, but may be circumstantial. Meyers v. Michigan Cent.
R. Co. (Mich.)...
Evidence.-Sufficient to establish fact of accidental injury to employee
warranting an award. Kinney v. Cadillac Motor Car. Co. (Mich.)..
Evidence. Showed among other things that workman fell and

was hurt
while working at a long inclined table, and while standing on a wet,
inclined platform. Held that as against demurrer thereto evidence was
sufficient to show that fall was accidental and that it arose out of em-
ployment. Madey et al. v. Swift & Co. (Kan.).
Evidence.-Failing to support verdict, judgment is reversed. Davis V.
Fowler Packing Co. (Kan.).

168

402

402

395

382

385

Bog-

293

402

Evidence. Insufficient to show that accident arose out of employment.
gess et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)
Evidence.-Board not only passes on credibility of witnesses, but its in-
ferences from circumstances and facts which it finds established.
Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.)..
Evidence.-Erroneous admission of hearsay statements as to cause of ac-
cident does not require a reversal where there was other legal basis
for its conclusion. Kinney v. Cadillac Motor Car Co. (Mich.).
Evidence. No warrant for finding that deceased contributed to father's sup-
port by sending money to him in Austria, the sole basis of which is
testimony by deceased's depositary that deceased had requested an
advancement of money, saying it was intended for such purpose.
Western Indemnity Co., Inc., et al. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of
State of California (Cal.).
300

Evidence. Finding of facts by board on conflicting evidence is conclusive
on Appellate Court. Underhill V. Central Hospital for the Insane
(Ind.)

.......

Evidence.-Commission not bound to take greater quantity of evidence as
against lesser. Santa Anna Sugar Co. of Santa Ana et al. v. Industrial
Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)..

Evidence. Where Board proceeded on erroneous principles of law, award
being reversed, widow should be allowed to introduce further evidence
at new hearing and if she does so the insurer must have same privilege.
In re Derinza-In re Pucci-In re Contractors' Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
(Mass.)

395

360

745

795

Evidence. Where evidence as to nature and extent of injury to claimant's
thumb is undisputed, finding of Commission that injury should be con-
sidered as loss of entire thumb was legal conclusion subject to review
by court-injury to thumb requiring amputation of distal phalanx and
removal of slight chip of bone of proximal phalanx not equivalent to loss
of whole thumb. Baron v. National Metal Spinning & Stamping Co., et
al. (N. Y.)..
867

Evidence. To prove that master has elected not to be bound by act servant
must not only show that master has so notified board but also that
plaintiff had received copy thereof, or copy posted where he was em-
ployed. Beveridge v. Illinois Fuel Co. (III.).......
Evidence.-Servant or master wishing to avoid act has burden of showing
not only that board has been notified, but also that servant had received
copy of such notice, or such notice had been posted. Barnes v. Illinois
Fuel Co. (Ill.)...

958

962

..1049

Evidence. If conflicting, issue was for board to decide and its decision
disposes of the case. Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.).
Evidence. Conclusions of board will not be disturbed on appeal if there is
competent evidence on which to base them-finding for compensation
for death of elevator operator whose body was found in elevator pit that
employee met his death in course of employment is suppored by evidence.
Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co. (Mich.).

.1055

Evidence. Where carrier without objections allows establishment of material
fact by hearsy evivdence, it cannot be heard to say on appeal that such
evidence was incompetent. Hernon V. Holahan et al. In re Londong
Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited (N. Y.)

Exceptions.

(SEE COVERAGE.)

Federal Judicial Code.

Federal Judicial Code.-Amendment of October 6, 1917 saving to claimants
the rights and remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Acts of
any state is prospective and does not validate compensation action
begun in a state court before its passage and which at time of such
passage the state court had no jurisdiction to entertain. Coon v. Ken-
nedy (N. J.)....

Fellow Servant.

.1120

....1101

Fellow Servant.-Where employee loses his life in rescuing fellow employee
while both are working in course of employment, relatives may re-
cover workmen's compensation at least where deceased was not posi-
tively prohibited by employer to undertake the rescue. General Ac-
cident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Limited v. Evans et al. (Tex.)......1148

Fooling.

Fooling. Because skylarking of boys employed in plant came under ob-
servation of president and superintendent, those officers were thereby
charged with contemplating that the same thing might occur again;
that is skylarking or horse-play, not that one boy might thereafter com-
mit an atrocious assault upon another. Mountain Ice Co. v. McNeil et
al. (N. J.).

.1102

Fooling. Where servant at work as riveter's helper was seized by another
who held an air hose to his rectum while third turned on the air, in-
juring him, such injury arose in the course of but not out of his em-
ployment-injury was direct result of skylarking and not chargeable
to master. Tarpper v. Weston-Mott Co. et al. (Mich.)....
Fooling. Where there was evidence tending to support superior court's
finding that injury was sustained while employee was engaged in
throwing a bobbin and bobbin pounder back and forth it was not
chargeable to master. Leclaire v. Glengarry Mills, Inc. (R. I.)...

Foreign Country.

Foreign Country.-Second mate on voyage from San Francisco to Canada
and return fell within exclusive jurisdiction of United States courts.
Tallac Co. vs. Pillsbury, et al., Industrial Acc. Commission (Cal.) . . . . . . . .

Foreign State.

Foreign State.-Employee, resident of New Jersey, killed while in employ of
New Jersey corporation, contract having been made in New Jersey, New
Jersey law governs, although accident happened while employee was at
work in state of New York. Barnhart vs. American Concrete Steel Co.
(N. Y.)
Foreign State.-Where person employed under New York contract was injured
while performing services for his employer in state of New Jersey, his
claim for compensation was under provisions of New York statute, rather
than statute of New Jersey. Gilbert vs. Des Lauriers Column Mould
Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y.).

Fraud.

Fraud. Where insurance company sets up fraud in obtaining policy and
commission ruled that it could not go into legality of policy, but on sub-
sequent cases does go into legality, and is upheld by the courts, the com-
pany cannot apply for rea hearing therein and have appeal for such re-
hearing considered. Clemens vs. Clemens & Grell-In re Commercial
Casualty Ins. Co. (N. Y.)....

Hazardous Occupation.

Hazardous Occupations.-Building and repair of an ordinary dirt road is
not an extrahazardous occupation within the act. Where township used
explosives in dangerous quantities in making road it was engaged in
one of the "extrahazardous occupations." McLaughlin, Commissioner of
Highways, v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...

1040

441

7

246

232

240

504

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »