CHAPTER VI.

ACCIDENT ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

Sec.

262. Arising Out Of And In The Course Of In General.

ACCIDENTS SUSTAINED IN GOING TO AND FROM PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.

263. Going To Work In Own Conveyance.

264. Going From Work In Own Conveyance.

265. Going To And From Work In Conveyances Furnished By Employer. 266. While Walking To And From Work.

267. Going To And From Work Using Conveyances Of Third Parties. 268. Going To And From Work, On Premises Of Employer And While Passing Over Ways Of Egress And Ingress.

269. Going To And From Work Where Employment Is Not Limited To Fixed Hours.

270.

Seamen And Others Employed On Vessels Injured When Getting
On And Off Vessels.

271. Away From Place Of Employment On Business Of Employer.
272. Street Accidents.

273.

NON-WORKING TIME INJURIES.

Miscellaneous Accidents Before And After Work Hours.

274. During Temporary Cessation Of Work At The Direction Of Employer And For Own Purposes.

275. Going To Report To Employer.

276. Lunch Hour Injuries, On The Premises And Going To Place Off Premises For Luncheon.

277. Going To Receive Pay.

278. Going To Answer A Call Of Nature.

279. Injuries Sustained After Work Hours, By Employees Furnished Lodgings On The Premises And To Employee Visiting The Premises On Sundays For Purposes Not Connected With The Employment.

280. Away From Place Of Employment On Own Business Or Business Other Than Employer's.

281. Accidents Under Contract But Before Beginning Work, Before Actual Hiring, And After Discharge.

CHAPTER VI. (CONT'D)

EMPLOYEES OR ANOTHER'S WILFUL MISCONDUCT.

Sec.

282. In General.

283. Acts Not Constituting Wilful Misconduct.

284. Acts Constituting Wilful Misconduct.

veniences or Pleasure Of The Employee.

289. Miscellaneous Accidents Occurring Within "War Zone" And In Munition Works Together With Questions Pertaining To Employees In Military Service, As Affected By Compensation Acts. "AGGRAVATION" CASES AS AFFECTED BY THE DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE.

290. Aggravation Of Pre-Existing Condition.

291. Aggravation Of An Injury By Subsequently Intervening Causes. 292. Accidents Occurring To Employees While Performing Acts For The Master Other Than Those Within Their Particular Line Of Duty or Whose Conduct While Performing Their Duties To The Master Places Them Outside Of The Scope Of Their Employment.

ASSAULTS.

293. Resulting From Controversies Connected With Or Pertaining To Employment.

294. Resulting From Controversies Not Connected With Or Pertaining To Employment.

295. Burden Of Proof To Show That The Injury Was Caused By An Accident And That The Accident Arose Out Of And In The Course Of The Employment.

RULINGS AFFECTING SPECIFIC CASES AS ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

305. Assisting A Fellow Employee, Employee Of Another Employer Or A

313. Charity Worker And Persons Seeking Relief From Charity Injured.

336. Independent Contractor Doing Extra Work.

337. Infection From Various Causes.

359. Unintentional Injury By a Fellow Employee.

360. Using Elevator Contrary To Instructions.

361. Using Machinery Other Than That Employed To Use. 362.

Volunteers.

363; Watchman.

364. Window Cleaner Falling From Ledge.

§ 262. "Arising Out Of" and "In The Course Of' In General. Compensation for disability is conditioned in most of the American Workmen's Compensation Acts and in the English Act upon the disability being due to an accidental injury which arose "out of" and "in the course of employment." 1

3

North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and the Federal Act, use the phrase "in the course of employment;" Wyoming, "injured in hazardous employment;' and Wisconsin, "growing out of and incidental to the employment. ''4

1. Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Tennessee, etc., City of Chicago v. Industrial Comm. -Ill.—, (1920), 127 N. E. 49, 6 W. C. L. J. 17; Brown v. Bristol Last Block Co., Vt.—, (1920), 108 Atl. 922, 5 W. C. L. J. 628; Fassig v. State ex rel. Turner-Ohio 116 N. E. 104, B. 1 W. C. L. J. 1458; Stasmos v. State Indus. Comm., -Okla., (1921), 195 Pac. 762.

2. Lumberman's Reciprocal Ass'n. v. Behnken, Tex. Civ. App.-, 226 S. W. 154, 7 W. C. L. J. 363.

3. Twin Peaks Canning Co. v. Indus. Comm., Utah-, 1921, 196 Pac. 853.

4. Federal Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Havolic, 162 Wis. 341, 156 N. W. 143, 12 N. C. C. A. 793.

The two elements of this phrase are discussed in an Illinois case in which the court said: "The words 'arising out of' and the words 'in the course of' are used conjunctively. In order to satisfy the statute, both conditions must concur. It is not sufficient that the accident occur in the course of the employment, but the causative danger must also arise out of it. The words 'arising out of' refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words 'in the course of' refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Sons, 1 B. W. C. C. 197; Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11, 116 N. E. 684. By use of these words it was not the intention of the Legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accident injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment, but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's employment or incidental to such employment, and accidents in which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded." 5

In a Minnesota case where a teacher was assaulted on her way home from school the court said; "Without determining whether the injuries to the teacher arose in the course of the employment it is held that they were not caused by accident arising out of the employment and that they are not compensable under the compensation act," the nature of the employment not being such as to naturally invite an assault."

5. Mueller Const. Co. v. Indus. Board, 283 III. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, 1 W. C. L. J. 943; Dietzen v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11, 116 N. E. 684; Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., 184 Mich. 87, 150 N. W. 325, L. R. A. 1916A. 310; Morris & Co. v. Indus. Comm., Ill..—, (1920), 128 N. E. 727, 7 W. C. L. J. 41; Sparks Milling Co. v. Indus. Comm., Ill.—, (1920), 127 N. E. 737, 6 W. C. L. J. 299; Weiss Paper Mill Co. v. Indus. Comm., -Ill., (1920), 127 N. E. 732, 6 W. C. L. J. 307; Kowalek v. N. Y. Consol. Ry. Co., N. Y. App. Div.-, 128 N. E. 888, 7 W. C. L. J. 215, Fournier's Case Me.-, (1921), 113 Atl. 270.

6. State ex rel. v. District of Itasca County, 140 Minn. 470, 168 N. W.