An employee was requested to meet his employer at a store on a holiday, and in order that he might get there at the allotted time, used his own automobile. While cranking the automobile he broke his arm. In denying compensation the commission held that the compensation act protected him while working at the place of his employment, but that while going to and from work, his risks were the same as those of the commona'ty and not those of the business in which he was engaged. The accident did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

32

An employee used his own motorcycle going to and from jobs, with the knowledge and consent of his employer, receiving no extra compensation for its use. While cleaning the clutch of the motorcycle at the place of employment, his fingers were caught in the chain guard, resulting in traumatic amputation of the distal phalanges of two of his fingers. In affirming an award, based on a finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, the court said: "Clearly, if the motorcycle was only used for the convenience of the claimant in bringing him to and from his place of work, the case would not be within the act. But the evidence shows that from time to time it was used in the business in going to and from the work off the premises, and that at other times when it had been cared for during working hours, no question had been raised by the employer. It could not be used in the business unless kept in proper condition. The facts that the workman was engaged upon it near the place of business during working hours, and that it was frequently used in the business, do not make the findings of the commission unreasonable."

An employee sustained a fracture of the leg, as a result of a collision with a street car while riding his motorcycle. He was on his usual way from his home to the store where he was employed, and intended to stop at a market and buy fresh vegetables for his employer, according to his usual custom. It was held

32. Graham v. Daly Bros., 2 Cal. I. A. C. 793, 1915, 12 N. C. C. A. 386; Gordon v. Eby, 1 Cal. I. A. C. D. (1914), 13, 4 N. C. C. A. 858; Oldham v. Southwestern Surety Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. D. (1914) 7, 7 N. C. C. A. 410. 33. Kingsley v. Donovan, 169 N. Y. App. Div. 828, 155 N. Y. S. 801, 12 N. C. C. A. 384.

that while the boy was going to work on the portion of the way between his home and the market he was not engaged in his employment, and that the risk resulting in the accident had no connection with the employment. 34

A fireman returning to work on a motorcycle after his midday meal collided with defendant's automobile and was seriously injured. It was held that the city street was not on the "premises of his employer," within the meaning of the Wisconsin Act (L. 1913, C. 599), and that the case did not therefore come under the compensation act.35

A well borer was allowed to ride to and from work on his employer's time. His bicycle was struck by an automobile which resulted in a facture of his leg. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. 36

A lawyer's clerk, who was also a court clerk, usually made the trip between the places of employment by train, but sometimes used his bicycle to his employer's knowledge and without his disapproval. One time on returning from the court on his bicycle he was struck by a motor car, sustaining injuries resulting in his death. Reversing the decision of the lower court, it was held that the use of his own bicycle was not at the direction of the employer, and that the road over which he was required to travel was not attended by any peculiar risk, nor was the bicycle such a dangerous article that its permitted occasional use made the employer liable for the consequences of an accident on the road. The accident did not arise out of the employment, and compensation was denied. 37

Compensation was allowed for the death of a barge who was drowned in the night while returning from shore and crossing intermediate barges to reach his own. 38

captain,

cafe on

34. Hummer v. Hennings, 2 Cal. I. A. C. 857 (1915) 12 N. C. C. A. 384. 35. Hornburg v. Morris, 163 Wis. 31, 157 N. W. 556, 12 N. C. C. A. 383. Hiserman v. Garside, 1 Cal. I. A. C. 516 (1914) 12 N. C. C. A. 383. Read v. Baker, 32 T. L. R. 382, 60 Sol. J.

36.

37.

C. A. 382.

402, 140 L. T. 466, 12 N. C.

38. Countrymen v. Neuman, 174 App. Div. 900, 159 N. Y. S. 1108; Lazarick v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 171 App. Div. 959, 155 N. Y. S. 1119.

An employee was injured while going to assist in unloading a steam shovel. He was riding his own motorcycle and was paid for the time in going to and coming from the place of employment. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. 39

§ 264. Going from Work in Own Conveyance. An employee quit work, mounted his motorcycle and started for home. When riding down the street he collided with an automobile driven by another employee. He sustained injuries which resulted in his death. In holding that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the employment, the court said: "To come within the term 'injury received in the course of employment' it must be shown that the injury originated in the work, and, further, that it was received by the employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs of the employer. If it be conceded. that the injury originated in the work, it would still be necessary, in our opinion, to show that the employee was engaged in the furtherance of his employer's business." 40

An officer of a corporation was also employed in the capacity of looking after the collection of debts, and upon hearing that several debtors might be found at a certain hotel barroom, he proceeded there on an interurban car. After interviewing several debtors, he spent the evening at another hotel and at the Elks club rooms. At 11 p. m. discovering that he had missed the last interurban car, he hired a taxicab to take him home. While enroute to his home, the taxi stopped for gasoline and it was necessary for him to alight, and he was struck by another car, sustaining serious injuries. The board certified the above facts to the court with the question whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The court held that these were facts for the determination of the board and if the board

39. Cummings v. Johnson Const. Co., (1916), 9 N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 369. 40. Indemnity Co. v. Dinkins, (Tex. Civ. App.), 211 S. W. 949 (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1034, 4 W. C. L. J. 294; In re Peter S. Winchester, 2nd A. R. U. S. C. C. 262; In re Julius Rosenberg, 2nd A. R. U. S. C. C. 263; Kirby Lumber Co. v. Scurlock, Tex. Civ. App.- (1921), 229 S. W. 975.

W. C.-33

found that the business of the corporation detained him beyond the time for the last interurban car, then the board might find that the accident did arise out of and in the course of the employment, but if the business of the corporation was only incidental to a holiday afternoon and that social affairs detained him, then the board must find otherwise.11

An employee engaged in setting up machinery at different places for his employer was killed while on his way home to spend Sunday, when the jitney he had hired was struck by a train. Upon conflicting evidence as to whether or not the employee was to leave a job before it was finished for the purpose of spending Sunday in the City, the Court held that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment."2

Where a workman an his way home attempted to board a train moving up an incline and was killed in the attempt it was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment.43

Where a workman was injured by accident on a train on which he was riding while going home from work on a gratuitous pass, given him by his employer and which he was not obliged to use, it was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment."

An employee who was paid by the hour was furnished a bicycle for his work, and while riding home one evening on the main road he was run into and killed by a motor lorry. It was held that, since it was no part of his duty to ride home on the bicycle the accident did not arise in the course of his employment.+5

45

41. In re Raynes, 64 Ind. App.-, 118 N. E. 387, 1 W. C. L. J. 562, 16 N. C. C. A. 909.

42.

Inter. Harvester Co. of N. J. v. Indus. Bd. of Ill., 282 111. 489, 118 N. E. 711, 1 W. C. L. J. 762.

43. Pope v. Hill's Plymouth Co., (1912), W. C. Rep. 15, 105 Law Times Rep. 678, 5 B. W. C. C. 175, 3 N. C. C. A. 273.

44. Whitbread v. Arnold, 1 B. W. C. C. 317, 99 Law Times 103 (1908) 3 N. C. C. A. 272.

45. Edwards v. Wingham Agriculture & Imp. Co., (1913), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 642, 109 L. T. Rep. 50, 82 L. J. K. B. 998, 6 B. W. C. C. 511, 4 N. C. C. A. 115; Cook v. Owners of "Montreal," 108 L. T. Rep. 164, 29 T. L. Rep. 233, 6 B. W. C. C. 220 (1913) 4 N. C. C. A. 115.

A city employee rode, home on the horse he was using. While taking it to a watering place, as was his custom, and before reaching the trough, the horse ran away and fatally injured the driver. It was not shown that he had any right to use the horse of his employer as a means of getting home, but to water the horse first was one of his duties. It was held that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.40

Deceased was employed to collect cream and deliver butter. He used his own automobile, which overturned while passing another car and he was killed. As was his custom deceased was taking home butter to deliver on his way. The commission found that this fact was sufficient to prove that he was still performing a service in the course of his employment and compensation was allowed.47

A deputy marshal, riding a motor cycle, was going home when he collided with a horse and buggy and was badly injured. The accident occurred a few moments before his day's work ended and while he was going home to see his wife, intending to return to the town hall and remain for the night. On his way he also intended to see about a street light which was reported as being out of order, this being part of his duties. The commission held that at the time of the accident the applicant was not performing any service growing out of, or in the course of his employment. He was going home for purposes of his own and the fact that he was going to see about a street light or that it was a few moments before his day's work ended, does not bring him within the provisions of the act.48

An employee had quit work and left the premises. He was sitting in his buggy waiting for his son, when the horse took fright and ran away. It was held that the injury sustained in the runaway did not arise out of or in the course of the employment.49

46. Pigeon v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp., Ltd., 216 Mass. 51, 102 N. E. 932, 4 N. C. C. A. 516.

47. Golden v. Delta Creamery Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. 734, (1915), 12 N. C. C. A. 386.

48. Eastman v. St. Comp. Fund, 2 Cal. I. A. C. 350 (1915), 12 N. C. C. A. 387.

49.

In re McCall, Ohio I. C. No. 121401, Nov. 4, 1915.