machinery is employed impresses an extrahazardous character on work to be performed in such place. It merely employs the circumstance of the presence of power-driven machinery in connection with a number of other things in defining a workshop. If the presence of power-driven machinery is the sole determining factor, then every shaft in which is operated a power-driven elevator or lift is a workshop. Then, also, the operator of the elevator and every employee of appellant who in the course of his duties had occasion to enter the elevator to pass from one floor to another would be employed, for the time being, in a room or place wherein power-driven machinery is employed, hence a workshop, and in an extrahazardous work." Though the respondent was injured in a place where power-driven machinery was employed, it cannot by the widest stretch of the meaning of the statute be termed a workshop. Though his regular employment was at times fraught with hazard, as are all employments, it was not one which, to use the language of section 2 of the act, has come to be, and to be recognized as being inherently and constantly dangerous.' Neither was it connected with any of the occupations enumerated as extrahazardous in section 2, nor is it mentioned in any of the schedules in section 3, or in any of the classification in section 4. "Neither the work of a janitor in an office building nor working in or about an elevator shaft has yet been classified by the department as extrahazardous, nor has any rate of contribution been fixed. ''16 A handy man employed in all parts of a business engaged in the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide and other chemical preparations employing electric power-driven machinery was engaged in an extrahazardous occupation within the protection of the act.17 An electric power company, operating street railways comes within the Texas act, in so far as pertaining to the employees en 16. Remsnider v. Union Savings & Trust Co., 89 Wash, 87, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 40, 154 Pac, 135, 16 N. C. C. A. 695. 17. Hydrox Chemical Co. v. Indus. Comm.,564, 5 W. C. L. J. 811. Ill. (1920), 126 N. E. gaged in operating the electric power department of its busi § 115. Private Railroad. When the Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act was amended by Chapter 193, Laws of 1915, so as to exclude employees of all railroad companies operating steam railroads as common carriers, the legislative intent was that private steam railroads not engaged as common carriers should remain therein, in the absence of an express election not to be bound by the act.19 § 116. Process Server.-A process server for a street railway company is not sufficiently connected with the hazardous employment of the company to entitle him to compensation for an injury sustained while riding on one of its cars for his own convenience.20 21 § 117. Road Building.-Work on a state highway is not ordinarily considered a hazardous occupation. The building of an ordinary dirt road is not an extrahazardous occupation, nor is it work in connection with a structure within the meaning of the act.22 Roadbuilding when accompanied with the use of large quantities of explosives, is considered extrahazardous.23 § 118. Salesman.-The fact that the employer is conducting a hazardous employment, will not operate to bring a traveling 18. Eastern Texas Electric Co. v. Woods, Tex. Civ. App. 230 S. W. 498. 19. Minn. 20. (1921), State ex rel. Winston-Dear Co. v. District Court of St. Louis Co.,-— 176 N. W. 749, 5 W. C. L. J. 711. Brown v. Richmond Light & R. Co., 173 App. Div. 432, 159 N. Y. S. 1047, 16 N. C. C. A. 637. 21. Board of Commissioners of Kingfisher County v. Grimes, — Okla. (1919) 182 Pac. 897, 4 W. C. L. J. 636; Brennan v. Indus. Comm. Ill. -, (1919), 124 N. E. 297, 4 W. C. L. J. 603. 22. McLaughlin v. Indus. Bd. 281, Ill. 100, 117 N. E. 819, 16 N. C. C. A. 682, 1 W. C. L. J. 504. 23. McLaughlin v. Indus, Bd. of Ill., 281 Ill. 100, 117 N. E. 819, 16 N. C. C. A. 677, 1 W. C. L. J. 504. salesman from the employer's plant within the terms of the New York Act so as to entitle him to compensation for an injury received while riding in a bus visiting customers.24 One employed to sell sewing machines, deliver and set them up in the purchasers' place of business was not engaged in a hazardous employment.25 § 119. Sewer Construction.-"To come within the act, a workman must be employed in one of the various classes of enterprises named in the statute, and that enterprise must be conducted for the purpose of business, trade or gain," therefore a city constructing a sewer did not come within the provisions of the Kansas Act.26 § 120. Slaughter and Packing House. The business of a retail grocer who also butchers cattle, sheep and hogs at a slaughter house operated in another place, for sale to his retail customers, and who at his grocery store cuts the meat, makes sausage and renders lard from such animals for sale in a small way, is not engaged in the business of operating a slaughter and packing house within the meaning of schedule "n" of section 18, of the West Virginia Workmen's Compensation Law.27 § 121. Smoke Stack Wrecking.-Wrecking a smoke stack is extrahazardous employment.28 § 122. Stable. A city ordinance regulating the width of stalls and passageways in private livery, sale or boarding stables does not apply to the stable of an employer engaged in the distribution of dairy products so as to make such business extrahazardous within the meaning of the Illinois act.20 24. Mandel v. Steinhardt & Bro., 173 App. Div. 515, 160 N. Y. S. 2, 16 N. C. C. A. 642. 25. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., v. Indus. Comm. N. E. 771. 26. 27. J 759. - (1921), 129 Redfern v. Eby, Kan. -, 170 Pac. 800, 16 N. C. C. A. 668. 28. American Steel Foundries v. Indus. Bd. of Ill., 284 Ill. 99, 119 N. E. 902. 29. Bowman Dairy Co. v. Indus. Comm.-Ill., (1920), 126 N. E. 596, 5 W. C. L. J. 786. § 123. Storage. "The expression 'storage of all kinds and storage for hire' implies that if an employer is storing his own property he may be engaged in a 'hazardous employment.' But the question in this and other similar cases is to determine under what circumstances the employer is engaged in the 'employment' of storing his own property. it is, of course, impossible to enunciate a rule applicable to all cases. Each case as it arises must largely be determined with reference to its own facts. It may be difficult in some cases to draw the line of demarcation. It seems quite clear, however, that in a case like the present, where a merchant is not holding his stock of goods or any part thereof with reference to any future requirements of the market or business contingency, but is endeavoring to sell the same to his customers and is immediately offering, and exposing the same for sale in the ordinary course of his business, such a person is not engaged in the 'employment' of storage. 1730 It has been held that a general storage and warehouse business is not so extrahazardous in character as to warrant the industrial Commission of Washington to declare it to be within the Compensation Act as amended by the Washington Laws of 1919, c. 131.81 A produce dealer who incidentally stores his fruits, vegetables, etc., is not within a provision covering "storage of all kinds." "He was carrying on the business of a produce dealer, limited to a few domestic fruits and vegetables, for pecuniary gain, and whatever of storage was involved in the transaction, it was incident to this business of dealing in produce. ''32 One engaged as a "junk dealer in bottles and storage" is not engaged in a hazardous occupation nor does he come within the New York Act designation of "storage of all kinds and storage. for hire" the bottles being only stored for sale.33 Conducting a coal yard does not come within the definition of storage, thereby becoming a hazardous occupation, where the 30. In re Roberto, 180 App. Div. 143, 167 N. Y. Supp. 397. 31. State v. Eyres Storage & Distributing Co, Wash. 390, (1921). 198 Pac. 32.. Dugan v. McArdle, 184 App. Div. 570, 172 N. Y. Supp. 27. 33. Kronberger v. Harlem Bottle Co., 181 N. Y. App. Div. 900, 167 Supp. 400, 16 N. C. C. A. 687. W. C.-19 dealer is not holding the coal for any future requirements of the market or business contingencies but is endeavoring to sell the same to his customers.3 Storage in connection with a retail store for the purpose of immediately disposing of the goods is not such storage as is contemplated by the provisions of the statute making storage a hazardous occupation.35 § 124. Street Railway.--A corporation operating a street railway is engaged in an extrahazardous occupation. 36 § 125. Structure. The term structure has been defined to be "a building of any kind, but chiefly a building of some size and magnificence; an edifice."37 While the word may cover a great variety of form and construction, yet when used in connection with the words "house" and "building," it is evidently intended to simply describe a variety of building.38 It includes that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.3 It may include work below as well as above ground. Laying a water main was erecting a "structure," within the meaning of the Wisconsin Labor Law, providing that a person employing another in labor of any kind in erecting, repairing, or painting of a house, buildings, or structure shall not furnish for the performance of such labor, scaffold 34. 40 39 Roberto v. John F. Schmadeke, Inc., 180 N. Y. App. Div. 143, 167 N. Y. S. 397, 11 N. C. C. A. 687. 35. Walsh v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 180 App. Div. 120, 167 N. Y. S. 394, 16 N. C. C. A. 689; Dugan v. H. J. McArdle, Inc., 184 App. Div. 570, 172 N. Y. Supp. 27, 2 W. C. L. J. 919. 36. McCabe v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 177 N. Y. App. Div. 107, 162 N. Y. Supp. 741, 16 N. C. C. A. 669. 37. Conley v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 94 App. Div. 149, 88 N. Y. Supp. 123; Anderson v. State, 17 Tex. App. 305; Favro v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. Rep. 452, 46 S. W. 932, 73 Am. St. Rep. 950. 38. Conley v. Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co., 94 App. Div. 149, 88 N. Y. Supp. 123. 39. Lewis v. State, 69 Ohio St. 473, 69 N. E. 980. 40. Kosidowski v. Milwaukee, 152 Wis. 223, 139 N. W. 187. |