should be in New Jersey. Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co. et al.
(N. Y.)
That Compensation Act abolishes certain common-law defenses "within the
state" and that the act is made applicable to minors legally employed
under laws of this state does not show intention to limit act to injuries
within the state-act is part of every contract and in case of injury to
employee rights and liabilities must be determined in accordance with
its provisions whether injury occurs within or without the state. Ander-
son v. Miller Scrap Iron Co. et al. (Wis.)..

647

389

26

18

To authorize compensation it is not necessary that injury be one which
ought to have been foreseen or expected, but it must be one which,
after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in nature of employ-
ment. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.)..
Injury occurs in course of employment when within period of employment,
at place where employee may reasonably be and while reasonably ful-
filling duties of employment. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Com-
mission of Illinois et al. (Ill.)
Employee so drunk and helpless that he can no longer follow his employment
is not engaged therein and injury received while in such condition does
not arise out of employment. Lefens et al v. Industrial Commission
et al. (Ill.)
Plaintff thrown from runway between two buildings was injured in course
of employment. Gadberry v. Hutchinson Egg Case Filler Co. (Kan.).. 473
In order that injury may arise out of employment it must be received while
workman is doing duty he is employed to perform and also as natural
incident of work flowing therefrom as natural consequence and directly
connected therewith. Di Salvio v. Menihan Co. et al. (N. Y.)....
Employee, who was in shop in which he worked all ready for day's work at
time of accident was injured within course of employment. Rish v. Iowa
Portland Cement Co. (Ia.)....

Injury arising out of employment includes injuries to employees whose serv-
ces are being performed about premises of employer and at places where
employer's business required their presence. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Co. v. Totzke et al. (Ind.)..

$372.

CAUSE OF INJURY IN GENERAL.
Since under statute, compensation is given only for such injuries as are in-
cidental to and grow out of employment, it does not extend to injuries
from exposure to hazard which is not peculiar to industry or substantially
increased by nature of services. Ellingson Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial
Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.)..

246

491

463

448

215

Where lumberjack by mistake in orders worked at wrong place and on find-
ing mistake went to proper place and worked so much harder than
usual in preparing for next day's drive that his feet perspired and were
consequently frozen, he received injury proximately caused by accident
arising out of and in course of employment within statute. Ellingson
Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. 215
"Personal injury" includes not merely break in some part of body or some
wound, but the consequence or disability resulting thereform, such as de-
pressed mental or nervous condition. Kingan & Co., Limited v. Ossam
(Ind.)
Injury directly and naturally resulting in risk reasonably incident to employ-
ment arises out of employment. Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co.
(Kans.)

373.- PARTICULAR CAUSES OF INJURY.
Where claimant, culling barrel staves for barrel raiser, was assulted by em-
ployee, who was culling staves for another barrel raiser, because of dis-
pute in regard to one taking staves from rack of other, he suffered ac-
cidental injury in course of employment. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. In-
dustrial Commission et al. (Ill.).....

276

713

26

144

Where beam tender of tire fabric company, whose business it was to see
that yarn was wound around revolving cylinder, was killed when he fell
on machine, accident arose out of employment. Dow's Case. In re
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.)..
Injury by freezing is not peculiar to work of lumberjack, so that, in absence
of peculiar circumstances, compensation cannot be allowed therefor.
Ellingson Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et
al. (Wis.)
215
Where sunstroke paralyzed definite portion of employee's brain so that it no
longer discharged its proper functions, and death shortly resulted in ac-
cordance with ordinary process of such disturbance of brain, employee
sustained "personal injury" within the act-death from sunstroke held
compensable injury under act-it clearly appearing that employee was
stricken while doing what he was employed to do, injury arose "out of
and in the course of employment." Ahern v. Spier et al. (Conn.)...... 221
Where head waiter of hotel was killed, while in hotel eating lunch under
contract of employment, by waiter whom he had discharged in interests
of hotel and acting under its authority, death was in course of employ-
ment. Cranney's Case. In re Hotel Essex. In re Employers' Liability
Assur. Corporation, Limited (Mass.)..

641

584

629

629

Where coal hauler, engaged on hot day in shoveling coal at place where there
was no shade, was stricken with heat or sunstroke and later died, injury
was one arising out of employment. Cunningham V. Donovan et al.
(Conn.)
Attempt to start fire by use of kereosene which he supposed was signal oll
did not thereby add to his employment any peril outside thereof, and
injury arose out of employment. Benson v. Bush (Kansas)...
Attempt to start fire by use of kerosene which he supposed was signal oid did
not thereby add to his employment any peril outside thereof, Benson v.
Bush (Kans.).
Where cap, found by chauffeur in coal pile on dock 200 feet from garage,
around which he was working, exploded in chauffeur's attempt to remove
attached wire, injuring fellow chauffeur passing by in discharge of duties,
fellow chauffeur's injury was result of accident arising out of employ-
ment. Laurino v. Donovan et al. (N. Y)....
Employer is liable for injury sustained by employee from electric shock
caused by mischievous prank of fellow workmen, when shown that per-
petration of such pranks had become custom-person designated by mas-
ter to direct work of employees is a "foreman," however limited in other
respects his authority may be and knowledge of foreman was knowl-
edge of master. White v. Kansas City Stockyards Co. (Kansas)...... 476
Where workman employed in logging camp was required to sleep in bunk
furnished by employer and was injured by straw falling from upper bunk
lodging in his throat, injury was incidental to employment. Holt
Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. 549

§ 374.
INJURY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.
Employee's fall upon machine was proximate cause of death, cause of fall
being remote cause only. Dow's Case-In re American Mut. Liability
Ins. Co. (Mass.)

That employee was not exposed to sunstroke in greater degree than others in
same employment and than many other out-of-door workers is immaterial
Ahern v. Spier et al. (Conn.)...

499

144

221

Basis of recovery under act is that injury be proximately caused by accident.
Frint Motorcar Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).. 399

It being custom that where deceased, sent to procure samples could not
finish his inspection and return to plant before 6 P. M., he would bring
samples with him in the morning, injuries received while going home
after 7:15 P. M., at which time he left plant of another company after
procuring samples did not arise out of and in course of employment,
whether or not he was carrying samples when injured. N. K. Fairbank
Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...

(1). In general.

.....

18

186

Amendment defining "employee" as one in hazardous occupation, does not
bring workman injured out of course of employment within Act, in view
of section 7, defining injury as one arising out of and in course of
employment. Pierson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (N. Y.)..
Where deceased was expected to eat lunch and spend noon hour at factory
and to operate elevator when occasion demanded, and he was found
crushed between elevator and gate during noon hour, employer was liable
for compensation when plant was one included within act in absence of
showing suicide. Humphrey et al. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois
et al. (Ill.)......
..... 102
Where superintendent of apartment house was injured by assault committed
upon him by tenant of building as result of quarrel arising from insults
offered tenant's wife, injury did not occur in line of claimant's duty,
assaults being accidents "arising out of employment" only when employee
is engaged in master's business. Muller v. H. & A. Cohen, Inc., et al. (N.
Y.)
There was evidence that plaintiff, seventeen year old girl, paid by hour, was
injured during half hour's intermission at noon while, although at liberty
to leave premises, she remained there and after eating her lunch engaged
with fellow employes, in accordance with custom known to and approved
by employer, in riding truck, finding that accident occured in course of
employment was justified. Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. (Kan.). 712
Where employee, while driving automobile with which he was not familiar
and which was owned by fellow employee who accompanied him on busi-
ness for his employer, was killed in collision with electric car, no injunc-
tion being laid upon them by their employer as to who should operate ma-
chine or what kind should be used, he was acting within course of em-
ployment. Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commis-
sion et al. (Cal.)

That workman at time he receives injury is acting in violation of directions
does not preclude injury from arising out of employment. Peru Basket
Co. v. Kuntz (Ind.)..

In proceedings for death of waiter, shot while approaching scuffle between
another waiter and armed customer, fact that it was waiter's duty to
keep order sufficient to sustain award. Stevens et al. v. Industrial Ac-
cident Commissin of California et al. (Cal.)..

Servant upon discovering that no chute with which to unload coal had been
placed on wagon, went to nearby saloon and telephoned to master's of-

649.

577

627

572

fice and who was struck by passing automobile while in act of mounting
his wagon on his return, injured in course of employment. Consumers'
Co. v. Ceislik (Ind.).

Street flushing motor truck operator who fell in trying to pick up wrench from
footboard while manipulating lever was injured in course of employ-
ment, though at time of injury one not employee was running truck by
his permission. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited of Lon-
don, Eng., et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal)..
Had claimant suspended work during working hours to go to cloakroom or
wash room and had been injured she could have had an award-it was
enough that employee performing act ordinarily incident to working
day, though directly beneficial to herself-acquiescence of employer in
use of boiler room for employees to heat drinks for lunch sufficient to
abrogate rule promulgated long previously prohibiting such use-employee
who while on way to floor above slipped and fell at foot of staircase was
injured in course of her employment. Etherton v. Johnstown Knitting
Mills Co. et al. (N. Y.)..
Employee engaged in marking shoe soles crossed room to bid good-by to
fellow employee who had been drafted and while leaning on unguarded
cogwheel caught his fingers accident did not arise out of employment.
Di Salvio v. Menihan Co. et al. (N. Y.)..

That machinist disobeyed master's orders requiring him to remain in pit to
repair cars which were racing and in running to car to assist in its
repair was run over and killed by another car, does not put accident out-
side scope of employment. Frint Motorcar Co. v. Industrial Commission
of Wisconsin et al (Wis.)..

620

421

361

491

399

428

Where chauffeur employed to drive passenger to certain town reached des-
tination ahead of time and at his suggestion drove passenger around for
mutual pleasure and on such pleasure trip was shot by passenger, who
suddently became insane, death did not arise out of employment. Cen-
tral Garage of La Salle v. Industrial Commission et al. (III.)..
Relation of master and servant may extend beyond hours servant is actually
required to labor and in some instances to places other than premises
where servant is employed-where contract of employment provided that
servant should sleep on premises and in bunk furnished by master it
was within course of employment for servant to remain upon premises
and use bunk furnished for him. Holt Lumber Co. et al. v. Industrial
Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.).........
... 549

(2). Injury received while going to or from work.
Injury to employee of plumber, engaged in making private connections with
city sewers, arises out of employment, where on way to work, at em-
ployer's direction, he gets on his truck to get pipe left over at other
Job and from pipeyard and truck is struck by street car. Scully V.
Industrial Commission of Illinois (Ill.)..

30

78

115

154

Where miner, going to get tools in part of mine where he was told not to go,
died from obnoxious gases, he died as result of accident occurring in course
of employment. Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co. (Pa.).........
Where it is necessary that employee travel public streets in doing work, his
place of work includes such public streets as he is required to traverse
while doing work-where flour salesman was injured by automobile while
crossing street on way to board car to return from home. from which it
was customary for him to telephone orders for goods to employer, injury
arose out of and in course of employment. Bachman v. Waterman
(Ind.)
Where workman has completed day's work and has left premises and not then
engaged in performing any service of employment and meets with ac-
cident, he is not within Act. Erickson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.-O'Malley
v. Same (Minn.).......
Respondent's husband resided at Bismark, N. D. He was in employ of
relator, whose principal place of business was at Minneapolis, He
received salary and traveling expenses, excepting board while at home.
His duties to solicit shipment of grain from west of Missouri river to
reiator for sale on commission. While on way home from field of labor
on Sunday morning came to his death by accidental drowning, while at-
tempting to cross Missouri in rowboat. Held that his dependents are
entitled to recover compensation under Minnesota Act. State ex rel.
McCarthy Bros. Co. v. District Court of Hennepin County et al (Minn.).. 161
Where employee, five minutes after quitting time, after washing, put on coat
and hat, and then turned back to look about working room for com-
panions and in doing so put his head into elevator shaft and was killed
by descending elevator, accident did not arise out of and in course of
employment. Urban v. Topping Bros. et al. (N. Y.)...
Elevated railway guard having two hours off, who stayed on train to ride
to office for pay and thence to dentist, injured in collision, was not with-
in Act and could recover in civil action. Pierson v. Interborough Rapid
Transit Co. (N. Y.).

Injury and death of tobacco plantation workers after they had entered into
contract of employment, while being driven to place of work in auto-
mobile furnished by employer pursuant to employment contract. arose
in course of and out of employment. Scalia v. American Sumatra To-
bacco Co. et al.-Sala v. Same (Conn.)..
Mechanical engineer, employed on salary with no fixed hours of service, who
had been directed to go to another city for information for use in em-
ployer's business, and who, on his return after 11:30 P. M., and while

184

187

230

(Pa.).

786

791

going from station to home before reporting was killed by automobile, was injured in course of employment. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co. et al. (Pa.) Where engineer during vacation, but while in pay of and subject to employer's call, at request of superintendent went to inspect a pumping station to increase his efficiency as employee and was injured in automobile accident, widow entitled to damages for death as injury by injury in course of his employment. Messer v. Manufacturers' Light & Heat Co. et al. Where deceased servant, by crossing bridge under construction to get lunch was violating instruction of employer, injury did not arise out of employment. H. W. Nelson R. Const. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.. (II.) Car inspector on way home to dinner fell from trestle about half a mile from place where he stopped work but within defendant's railroad yards, finding that accident arose out of employment was unwarranted. McInerney v. Buffalo & S. R. Corporation (N. Y.).. Injuries and death from fall sustained by woman store employee tripping when about to pass through door into store of employer in coming to work, held to have arisen out of employment. Hallett's Case (Mass.).... 481 Where electrician was injured from explosion of dynamite cap while striking match to light cigarette while in shop approaching his work bench to start day's work, injuries arose out of employment, though use of caps was confined to different building and prohibited in shop. Rish v. Iowa Portland Cement Co. (Iowa)....

Where employee affected with disease receives personal injury under circumstances entitling him to compensation had no disease been involved, and such disease is materially hastened to final culmination by injury, award may be had if injury resulted from accident-employee afflicted with hernia lifted bale of wire causing intestine to protrude into existing hernial sac, necessitating operation to save life he was entitled to compensation. Puritan Bed Spring Co. v. Wolfe (Ind.).......

605

495

463

113

380. WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF EMPLOYEE IN GENERAL. Claimant's refusal to allow amputation of finger was not unreasonable or willful misconduct prejudicing additional_compensation, where his physician stated that finger could be saved. Enterprise Fence & Foundry Co. v. Majors (Ind.).... Claimant's failure to consult physician until two weeks after injury held not to justify denial of all compensation, his conduct not amounting to "willful or serious misconduct" which would possibly justify such denial under one section of statute. Rainey v. Tunnel Coal Co. et al. (Conn)........ 227 That lineman killed by contact with wire was guilty of contributory negligence, or of an infraction of certain rules of employer which were enforced with little or no diligence, would not constitute "willful misconduct." Indianapolis Light & Heat Co. v. Fitzwater (Ind.)..... Death of painter while painting inside of tank car without using respirator because one furnished was defective, held not due to willful misconduct in refusing to use safety appliance.. General American Tank Car Corporation v. Borchardt (Ind.)..

284

700

577

Where employee on master's business was killed in collision with electric car, while driving an automobile, his unfamiliarity with that particular kind of machine constituted negligence only on his part. Maryland Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)... Where deceased workman was tapping bolt in sand machine when he fell into machine and was killed, held though he violated instructions, accident cannot de deemed one which did not arise out of employment so as to preclude award. National Car Coupler Co. v. Marr et al. (Ind.).. 456 § 381. Though injury arose out of employment, there can be no award where injury and death were due to intoxication. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.. v. Totzke et al. (Ind.)....

§ 382.

INTOXICATION.

SATISFACTION OR RELEASE. Settlement receipt neither filed nor approved by Board does not prevent action by board. Adams v. W. E. Wood Co. et al. (Mich.)... Where watchman was killed while acting at crossing for both intrastate and interstate carrier, wife executed written release to interstate carrier in consideration of certain amount, release, in so far as any claim under state act was concerned, was invalid as against intrastate carrier, where it did not provide for full compensation in accordance with provisions of act. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.)

448

311

682

Though receipt and release given at time servant made settlement for injuries did not mention Compensation Act, as employer was operating under act, it must be deemed that settlement was made under act. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).. 435

383. ACCIDENT OR INSURANCE FUNDS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS THERETO. Mere contest by employer of order of Commission for commutation of award of death benefit to widow does not constitute good cause within act empowering Commission to revoke, for good cause shown, its consent for self-insurance. State Industrial Commission v. Yonkers R. Co. (N. Y.). 512 It was improper for Commission, pursuant to previous resolution, to require self-insurer, whose solvency was not questioned to pay into state fund present value of award to widow and children of deceased employeewhile law provides that Commission may require agreement on part of any employer to pay award computed under section 27 into special fund or state fund as condition to self-insurance, such consent does not require employer to observe arbitrary and illegal orders of Commission. Sperduto v. New York City Interborough Ry. Co. (N. Y.).

503

(B) COMPENSATION.

385. - DISABILITY BENEFITS.

(1). In general.

Insured employee seeking compensation must submit to operation which will cure him, when so advised by attending physician, when not attended with danger to life or health or extraordinary suffering and he cannot obtain compensation for permanent impairment resulting from such refusal. Enterprise Fence & Foundry Co. v. Majors (Ind.)... Under Act, life expectancy of claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability is at least proper element for consideration to assist in determining whether he is entitled to full maximum allowance or less sum -Act is to be construed liberally for protection of employee and Commission is restricted as to amount of weekly allowances only by statutory maximum, regardless of aggregate amount awarded. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.).. Claimant who suffered fracture of base of skull as result of which his sight and hearing were impaired and who suffered from dizziness, headache and general disability, being unable to work at his occupation of mining coal, condition being probably permanent, not inequitable to allow compensation for 25 per cent, disability, to be reduced at any time of proof of improvement. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Colo.).. "Compensation" in connection in which used in Compensation Act means money relief afforded according to scale established and for persons designated and not compensatory damages recoverable in action at law for wrong done or contract broken. Duart v. Simmons (Mass.)............ Where employee lost not only sight of his eye but eye itself, his case would not fall within that part of section 18, making compensation solely for "loss of sight" but within general provision awarding compensation "in all other cases of permanent partial disability." Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone & Sand Co. (Ky.).

Schedule of compensation for specific injuries may be used by Compensation Board as standard by which to measure compensation to be allowed by injuries not specified but falling within general clause awarding compensation "in all other cases of permanent partial disability." Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone & Sand Co. (Ky.)...

Painter who, through laceration of left hand, affecting extensor muscles controlling third and fourth fingers, practically lost use of fingers, though earning capacity was not diminished, did not "lose" fingers within Compensation Act and was entitled to compensation only for difference in earning capacities before and after accident. In re Merchant's Case (Me.)..

Award for loss of arm under act justified by medical testimony that amputation of forearm and wrist, though it had not destroyed use of arm entirely, had taken away a great deal of its function. Stocin v. C. R.. Wilson Body Co. et al. (Mich.).

Loss of more than fourth but less than half of index finger-not entitled to award for loss of half. Tetro v. Superior Printing & Box Co. et al. (N. Y.)

(5). Total disability.

Held, where servant who had already lost an arm suffered loss of leg, there was total disability, for employer hiring servant as one able only to do work of one-armed man. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.)

(6).

Loss of arm, hand, or finger. Employee, who had previously lost part of one finger, but nevertheless had use of hand, who, as result of latter injury not resulting in total severance, totally lost use of hand, was entitled to compensation for "total loss of use of hand," though with mechanical appliance on wrist he could perform some manual labor. Mark Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.).

118

91

91

136

132

730

732

763

360

435

594