Hazardous Occupations.-Though Sanitary District of Chicago, with respect
to its electric plant at Lockport, was engaged in an extrahazardous
occupation, that status does not prevail with respect to cribs in lake
at Chicago used for the intake of water necessary to district's disposition
of sewage and hence the act does not apply to the death of a crib
tender. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al.
(In.)
Hazardous Occupations.-Assisting in procuring men and materials for work
is fairly incidental to employment of foreman of road construction for
a town, entitling him to award for injury received while so assisting;
the occupation of road construction carried on by the town being
hazardous and the town represented by superintendent of highways
being an employer and the foreman being engaged in a hazardous occu-
pation being an employee. Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Trav-
elers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.).
Hazardous Occupations. Where the servant was employed casually, not
under contract, but on various odd jobs, as a plasterer in repairing a build-
ing for defendant, who owned and operated an apartment house, he was
not in the employ of the company in a business declared hazardous by
the Workmen's Compensation Law. Solomon v. Bonis-In re General
Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp. (N. Y.)....
Hazardous Occupations.-Claimant employed by village as street commis-
sioner and policeman, who looked after streets. lights, water, electric
poles, etc., was going to depot to get some lead to use on water pipes
when he saw a truckman going down and rode on his sleigh part of the
distance to depot, the truckman was making a trip on other business
and was to stop on his return trip to get the lead; claimant injured in
getting off sleigh a short distance from station, village cannot with
respect to accident be deemed to have been operating a vehicle, nor
can claimant. despite his services with respect to water and electrical
apparatus, be allowed an award on theory that accident occurred while
engaged in hazardous employment. Spinks v. Village of Marcellus et
al. (N. Y.)
689
Hazardous Occupations.-Where company engaged in nonhazardous employ-
ment, hired carpenter by hour to put shelving in store and he was in-
jured, employer was not liable to pay compensation to such employee,
since casual engagement of carpenter by hour does not make proprietor
engaged in structural carpentry. Geller v. Republic Novelty Works-In
re Commercial Casualty Co. (N. Y.)....
Hazardous Occupations.-Employee whose sole duty was to feed bundles
into combined thresher and cleaner was neither engaged in the hazardous
employment of operating vehicle-the thresher and cleaner mounted on
axles and wheels while being drawn from farm to farm would be a
vehicle within the act, but could not be so considered while being used
as stationery machinery. Vincent v. Taylor Bros-In re London Guar-
antee & Accident Co. (N. Y.)..
Hazardous Occupation.-Where stipulating before arbitrator that only ques-
tion was whether accident arose out of deceased's employment raising
no other question before the arbitrator or Industrial Board, employer
waived defense that deceased was not engaged in extrahazardous oc-
cupation. Chicago Packing Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (III.) 749
Hazardous Occupation.-As the act enumerates as extrahazardous occupa-
tion those in which municipal ordinance are imposed for regulating
guarding and placing machinery and Chicago ordinance stating re-
quirements of hospital building, chief engineer of hospital is engaged
in extrahazardous occupation. Hahnemann Hospital v. Industrial Board
of Illinois et al. (I.)...
Hazardous Occupation.-Under statute defining employee and employer,
employee in coal or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employ-
ment 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.)....
Hazardous Occupation.-Collector for brewery killed in saloon away from
plant was within protection of act which includes employees in service of
employer carrying on hazardous employment, although not actually
engaged in hazardous employment-where one was intentionally shot
and killed for purpose of robbing him there was "accidental injury."
Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co. In re Central & Western New
York Brewers' & Maltsters' Mut. Ins. Co. (N. Y.)..
Hazardous Occupation.-Cleaning and washing windows is a hazardous oc-
cupation. Chicago Cleaning Co. V. Industrial Board of Illinois et
al. (Ill.)..
Hazardous Occupations.-By provisions of sections 25 of the Industrial Com-
mission Act an order made by the commission to employers generally,
or to a particular employer with reference to safe employment or place of
employment is a lawful requirement, for failure to comply with which
with any statute or municipal ordinance prescribing means
methods required to be used to protect the lives, health, etc., of em-
ployees, the employer under the proviso contained in section 35, article 11
of the Constitution, and section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act
is liable to employees injured by reason of such failure. American Wood-
enware Mfg. Co. v. Schorling (Ohio.)....
Heart failure.-Evidence showed that deceased died solely of heart failure
and there was no unexpected event in connection with his work. Johnson
v. Mary Charlotte Mining Co. (Mich.).
(SEE SUNSTROKE ANN HEAT PROSTRATION.)
Hernia.-Proof failed to support theory that hernia received by employee
while lifting, or operation therefor, accelerated or aggravated his cardia
condition, or that it was the direct cause of death. Tucillo v. Ward
Baking Co.-In re Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (N. Y.)..
Hernia.-Evidence sufficient to sustain finding that a slight disability con-
sisting of a sinus and hernia were present continually from the day of
first operation by insurer's physicians in 1914, until second operation by
them in 1916, followed by death from peritonitis. Western Indemnity
Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California (Cal.).... 478
Hernia. Where servant sustained an inguinal hernia while lifting block
of timber or falling or being struck, nothing out of ordinary happening,
injury was not accidental. Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co. et al.
(Mich.)
.1031
Hernia.-Burden of proof rested upon employee to establish that his hernia
was caused by an accident which he suffered while in employer's
service. Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.).
Horse-Play.
(SEE FOOLING.)
Imprudent Act.
(SEE WILFUL MISCONDUCT.)
Inclusions.
(SEE COVERAGE.)
Independent Contractor.-On facts stated farmer was not the contractor's em-
ployee, but was an independent contractor, since contractor had not re-
served right to control manner of doing work, which is the true test
of relationship. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.)...
Independent Contractor.-One contracting to paint house for lump sum was
not by reason of such employment agent of employer to hire such labor
as he migh see fit and one hired by him was not employee of such con-
tractor's employer within the meaning of the act. Kackel vs. Serviss-
In re Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited (N. Y.)..........
Independent Contractor.-One employed to cut wood by cord and posts at
fixed sum with no agreement as to hours or method was an independent
contractor, and son helping him for half that his father received for
work was not an employee within the meaning of the act. Fidelity &
Deposit Co. of Maryland et al. vs. Brush et al. (Cal.)...
153
Independent Contractor.-Where deceased was employed on various jobs and
was paid the cost of the work plus 10 per cent, and for his own time
when he worked, etc, he was an independent contractor and his widow
was not entitled to compensation. Carleton v. Foundry & Machine
Products Co. et al. (Mich.)..
Independent Contractor.-Employee of Independent contractor can recover
compensation from subscriber, if he shows he was at work when injured
on premises under control and management of subscriber or where con-
tractor had agreed to perform the particular work and in addition that
his injury arose out of and in course of employment. In re Comerford
-Comerford v. Contractors' Mutual Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.)
Independent Contractor.-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 occa-
sion 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. Foreman directed drivers to same extent as other employees and
intended to engage injured person's services as driver, the injured per-
son being paid usual wages for driving and foremen retaining the
amount usually paid for team. Held, injured person was employee of
general employer and not employee of foreman, the contention that fore-
man was contractor being without merit. Yolo Water & Power Co. v.
Industrial Acc. Commission of California et al. (Cal.). .
Hazardous Occupations.-Though Sanitary District of Chicago, with respect
to its electric plant at Lockport, was engaged in an extrahazardous
occupation, that status does not prevail with respect to cribs in lake
at Chicago used for the intake of water necessary to district's disposition
of sewage and hence the act does not apply to the death of a crib
tender. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al.
(III.)
548
Hazardous Occupations.-Assisting in procuring men and materials for work
is fairly incidental to employment of foreman of road construction for
a town, entitling him to award for injury received while so assisting;
the occupation of road construction carried on by the town being
hazardous and the town represented by superintendent of highways
being an employer and the foreman being engaged in a hazardous occu-
pation being an employee. Lanagan v. Town of Saugerties-In re Trav-
elers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.)....
Hazardous Occupations. Where the servant was employed casually, not
under contract, but on various odd jobs, as a plasterer in repairing a build-
ing for defendant, who owned and operated an apartment house, he was
not in the employ of the company in a business declared hazardous by
the Workmen's Compensation Law. Solomon v. Bonis-In re General
Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp. (N. Y.)....
Hazardous Occupations.-Claimant employed by village as street commis-
sioner and policeman, who looked after streets. lights, water, electric
poles, etc., was going to depot to get some lead to use on water pipes
when he saw a truckman going down and rode on his sleigh part of the
distance to depot, the truckman was making a trip on other business
and was to stop on his return trip to get the lead; claimant injured in
getting off sleigh a short distance from station, village cannot with
respect to accident be deemed to have been operating a vehicle, nor
can claimant. despite his services with respect to water and electrical
apparatus, be allowed an award on theory that accident occurred while
engaged in hazardous employment. Spinks v. Village of Marcellus et
al. (N. Y.)
689
Hazardous Occupations.-Where company engaged in non hazardous employ-
ment, hired carpenter by hour to put shelving in store and he was in-
jured, employer was not liable to pay compensation to such employee,
since casual engagement of carpenter by hour does not make proprietor
engaged in structural carpentry. Geller v. Republic Novelty Works-In
re Commercial Casualty Co. (N. Y.)...
Hazardous Occupations.-Employee whose sole duty was to feed bundles
into combined thresher and cleaner was neither engaged in the hazardous
employment of operating vehicle-the thresher and cleaner mounted on
axles and wheels while being drawn from farm to farm would be a
vehicle within the act, but could not be so considered while being used
as stationery machinery. Vincent v. Taylor Bros-In re London Guar-
antee & Accident Co. (N. Y.).....
Hazardous Occupation.-Where stipulating before arbitrator that only ques-
tion was whether accident arose out of deceased's employment raising
no other question before the arbitrator or Industrial Board, employer
waived defense that deceased was not engaged in extra hazardous oc-
cupation. Chicago Packing Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.) 749
Hazardous Occupation.-As the act enumerates as extrahazardous occupa-
tion those in which municipal ordinance are imposed for regulating
guarding and placing machinery and Chicago ordinance stating re-
quirements of hospital building, chief engineer of hospital is engaged
in extrahazardous occupation. Hahnemann Hospital v. Industrial Board
of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..
Hazardous Occupation.-Under statute defining employee and employer,
employee in coal or wood yard not then classed as hazardous employ-
ment 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.)......
Hazardous Occupation.-Collector for brewery killed in saloon away from
plant was within protection of act which includes employees in service of
employer carrying on hazardous employment, although not actually
engaged in hazardous employment-where one was intentionally shot
and killed for purpose of robbing him there was "accidental injury."
Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co. In re Central & Western New
York Brewers' & Maltsters' Mut. Ins. Co. (N. Y.).............
.1133
Hazardous Occupation.-Cleaning and washing windows is a hazardous oc-
cupation. Chicago Cleaning Co. V. Industrial Board of Illinois et
al. (II.).
Hazardous Occupations.-By provisions of sections 25 of the Industrial Com-
mission Act an order made by the commission to employers generally,
or to a particular employer with reference to safe employment or place of
employment is a lawful requirement, for failure to comply with which
or with any statute or municipal ordinance prescribing means or
methods required to be used to protect the lives, health, etc., of em-
ployees, the employer under the proviso contained in section 35, article 11
of the Constitution, and section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act
is liable to employees injured by reason of such failure. American Wood-
enware Mfg. Co. v. Schorling (Ohio.).
Heart failure.-Evidence showed that deceased died solely of heart failure and there was no unexpected event in connection with his work. Johnson v. Mary Charlotte Mining Co. (Mich.).
(SEE SUNSTROKE ANN HEAT PROSTRATION.)
Hernia.-Proof failed to support theory that hernia received by employee while lifting, or operation therefor, accelerated or aggravated his cardia condition, or that it was the direct cause of death. Tucillo v. Ward Baking Co.-In re Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (N. Y.)..... Hernia.-Evidence sufficient to sustain finding that a slight disability consisting of a sinus and hernia were present continually from the day of first operation by insurer's physicians in 1914, until second operation by them in 1916, followed by death from peritonitis. Western Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California (Cal.).... 478 Hernia. Where servant sustained an inguinal hernia while lifting block of timber or falling or being struck, nothing out of ordinary happening, injury was not accidental. Tackles v. Bryant & Detwiler Co. et al. (Mich.) Hernia.-Burden of proof rested upon employee to establish that his hernia was caused by an accident which he suffered while in employer's service. Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.)..
Horse-Play.
(SEE FOOLING.)
Imprudent Act.
(SEE WILFUL MISCONDUCT.)
Inclusions.
(SEE COVERAGE.)
Independent Contractor.-On facts stated farmer was not the contractor's employee, but was an independent contractor, since contractor had not reserved right to control manner of doing work, which is the true test of relationship. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.).. Independent Contractor. One contracting to paint house for lump sum was not by reason of such employment agent of employer to hire such labor as he migh see fit and one hired by him was not employee of such contractor's employer within the meaning of the act. Kackel vs. Serviss— In re Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited (N. Y.)..... Independent Contractor.-One employed to cut wood by cord and posts at fixed sum with no agreement as to hours or method was an independent contractor, and son helping him for half that his father received for work was not an employee within the meaning of the act. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland et al. vs. Brush et al. (Cal.)... Independent Contractor.-Where deceased was employed on various jobs and was paid the cost of the work plus 10 per cent, and for his own time when he worked, etc, he was an independent contractor and his widow was not entitled to compensation. Carleton v. Foundry & Machine Products Co. et al. (Mich.)..... Independent Contractor.-Employee of Independent contractor can recover compensation from subscriber, if he shows he was at work when injured on premises under control and management of subscriber or where contractor had agreed to perform the particular work and in addition that his injury arose out of and in course of employment. In re Comerford -Comerford v. Contractors' Mutual Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.) Independent Contractor.-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. Foreman directed drivers to same extent as other employees and intended to engage injured person's services as driver, the injured person being paid usual wages for driving and foremen 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. Commission of California et al. (Cal.)....
Independent Contractor.-Facts being undisputed. the question whether
painter and decorator under contract with hotel company was regular
employee or independent contractor was one of law-finding of fact
by board held to be in effect that manager of hotel was in control of
men employed by injured painter and decorator who contracted for
job, held not supported by testimony. Held it to be an independent
contractor. Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co. et al. (Mich.).....
Independent Contractor.-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 con-
tractor of general employer, servant was an employee of subcontractor
within the statute and rights of employee are not effected by in-
validity of the subcontract. Wausau Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commis-
sion et al. (Wis.)....
Inference of Injury.-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.)......
Intentional, Self-Inflicted Injury.
Intentional Self-Inflicted Injury-Where usual means for washing up failed
one evening, servant was not guilty of wilful misconduct or intentional
self-inflicted injury within the act in going to another department to
heat water, where he was injured. In re Ayers (Ind.).
(SEE COSTS, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.)
Interstate Commerce.-If work which employee of railroad engaged in both
interstate and intrastate commerce was injured was part of interstate
commerce he was not entitled to compensation under Compensation Law.
Dickinson vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)......
Interstate Commerce.-Bringing of suit under Federal Employers' Liability
Act which was dismissed on demurrer was not election of remedies pre-
venting her filing claim under Workmen's Compensation Act, as doctrine
of election of remedies has no application to election between suits based
on different statutes. Jackson vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al.
(Ill.)
Interstate Commerce.-Employees in shops of railroad company were not
engaged in interstate commerce in pushing carload of lumber about shops
to place where it is to be unloaded, which was loaded at a point in this
state and hauled to shops its point of destination likewise in this state,
although lumber was intended for use in building and repairing cars
thereafter to be used, in part, in carrying interstate traffic-Section 52
of the act excepts employers who are engaged in both interstate and in-
trastate commerce and such of their employees as are also engaged in
both and whose employment is wholly within the state and constitutes
them distinct and separate classes and provides a different method
whereby they may obtain benefits of the act. Barnett vs. Coal & Coke
Ry. Co. (W. Va.)..
Interstate Commerce.-In determining whether employee of interstate carrier
is entitled to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Law, the true
test is whether his work was a part of the interstate commerce of the
carrier-plumber, employed in maintenance of ways department of in-
terstate carrier, engaged in repairing pipes in station, and killed by
train while crossing tracks, entitled to no compensation under Workmen's
Compensation Law, since he was engaged in interstate commerce. Voll-
mers vs. New York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.)....
Interstate Commerce.-Proceeding for compensation for death of brakeman,
killed at the time two cars of milk then engaged in intrastate commerce
were being coupled, held that commission was justified in finding there
was no violation of Federal Appliance Act and no negligence of employer.
That Industrial Commission was unable to say what was the cause of
death was immaterial, so long as appliances, equipment and cars were
within the law. Zimmerman vs. New York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.)...... 233
Interstate Commerce.-Section 26 of the act does not operate to deny an em-
ployer, engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce; his common-
law defenses in action brought by one of its employees for injury re-
ceived while performing work pertaining distinctly to intrastate com-
merce, etc. Barnett vs. Coal & Coke Ry. Co. (W. Va.).....
|