§ 265. Going to and from Work in Conveyances Furnished by Employer.-The Claimant was taking the garbage collection. equipment, part of which belonged to the city, to its usual place of storage and care so that it should be ready for the work of the following day. We can hardly conceive of a service which grows out of and is incidental to his employment as a garbage collector if this is not such a service.50

Two employees of a tobacco company were killed when an autɔmobile, which was furnished in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment, skidded and collided with a tree. In deciding that the injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, the court stated the established rule to be as follows:

"That the employer's liability in such cases depends upon whether the conveyance has been provided by him, after the real beginning of the contract of employment, for the mere use of the employees, and is one which the employees are required, or as a matter of right permitted, to use by virtue of that contract, Donovan's Case, 217 Mass. 78, 104 N. E. 431 Ann. Cas.. 1915 C, 778. *** Although the decedents, at the time of the accident, had not actually commenced their work upon the tobac co plantation of the defendant company, it is plain that their transportation was a part of the contract of employment with this defendant. When they were injured they were not passengers, paying a stipulated fare for the conveyance to their work. The automobile which skidded and caused the accident in question was furnished and paid for by the defendant company. The relation that then existed between the women and the Sumatra Tʊbacco Company was that of master and servant, and not that of carrier and passenger. At the time they were injured they were laborers in the employ of the tobacco company. Pigeon v. Lane, 80 Conn. 240, 67 Atl. 886, 11 Ann. Cas. 371; Killduff v. Boston Elevated Railway, 195 Mass. 308, 309, 81 N. E. 191, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873. This being so, the case is like Swanson v. Latham et al., 92 Com. 87, 101 Atl. 492, in which we stated that: 'An in

50. City of Milwaukee v. Fera et al., 170 Wis. 348, 174 N. W. 926.

jury received by an employee while riding, pursuant to his contract of employment, to or from his work in a conveyance furnished by his employer, is one which arises in the course of and cut of the employment.'" 51.

Where a brewing Company's solicitor was driving to a place where he contemplated continuing an interview begun earlier in the day regarding certain matters connected with his employment, the automobile, which he was driving and which was fur nished by his employer for use in the business, collided with a pile of bricks and turned over killing the solicitor, the court said: "We are of the opinion that an inference can be drawn that Mr. McMinn, at the time of his accident, was on his way to the place of business of Perrigo, in the course of his employment, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment."'52

While an employee was waiting for a street car on his way to work, his employer drove up in a Ford truck and requested the employee to get on the truck and go with him to the pipe yard to get some pipe and collect other pipe to take to the place where they were installing a sewer. While en route, the automobile was struck by a street car, injuring the employee. The court held that the injury occurred while the employee was performing an act which was necessarily incident to the employment and was acting at the direction of the employer. It did not matter that the accident happened before they arrived at the place where the main work of the employment was to be done. An injury may occur within the course of the employment and arise out of it even though it happen while the employee is on his way to and from

51. Scalia v. American Tobacco Co. et al., and Salia v. Same. 105 Atl. 346, 3 W. C. L. J. 230, 93 Conn. 82; Dominquez ". Pendoia, -Cal. App.—, (1920), 188 Pac. 1025, 6 W. C. L. J. 3; In re Lee Madero, 3rd A. R. U. S. C. C. 174; In re Jacob D. Snider, 3rd A. R. U. S. C. C. 175; In re Richard v. Tyler, 2nd A. R. U. S. C. C. 273; Central Const. Corp. v. Harrison, Md. App.-, (1920), 112 Atl. 627.

52. McMinn v. C. Kern Brewing Co., 202 Mich. 414, 168 N. W. 542, 17 N. C. C. A. 957.

his usual place of employment or while doing an act that is necessary to, or an incident of the employment.53

Applicant was away from his place of employment and conten plated taking a stage back to the place of his employment. When starting back he met a superintendent of the mine where applicant worked, who offered to let him ride back on trucks of their employer if he would assist in loading the trucks, and the owner would pay him for his labor. The offer was accepted, and on the way back applicant was injured. In denying compensation the court said that while riding back on the truck the employee was engaged in no service of his employer, and that the risk assumed was no different than if he had ridden back in the stage. The accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.54

An errand boy was injured while returning from an errand. The employer furnished a bicycle for use in this connection. When returning the boy caught hold of a passing truck and was thrown in front of another car when the truck suddenly turned a corner. The court held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.55

Where a nurse was required to use a bicycle in going to visit patients, and sustained injuries while en route, it was held that the accident was not one arising out of the employment.56

Compensation was denied for the death of an employee, who was killed while attempting to board a moving train to go to re port to his employer. The court held that the deceased adde 1 peril to the usual risk connected with his employment when he attempted to board the moving car. The accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.57

53. Scully v. Indus. Comm of Ill,, 284 Ill. 567, 120 N. E, 492, 3 W. C. L. J. 30.

54. Boggess v. .Indus. Acc. Comm., 176 Cal. 534, 169 Pac. 75, 1 W. C. LJ 293, 15 N. C. C. A. 268; Shultz v. Champion Welding & Mfg. Co., N. Y. App. Div. (1921), 130 N. E. 304.

-

55. Beaudry v. Watkins, 191 Mich. 445, 158 N. W. 16, 15 N. C. C. A. Dennis v. White & Co., (1917), A. C. 479, W. C. & Ins. Rep. 106, 15 N. C. C. A. 294.

254;

56.

Ince v. Reigate Education Committee, (1916), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 278, 15 N. C. C. A. 250.

57. Jibb v. Chadwick, (1915), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 342, 15 N. C. C. A. 248.

An employee of a street railway company was killed while crossing the street from a car upon which he had returned to the car barns. The contract of employment did not provide for conveyance to and from work on the defendant's cars. In denying compensation the court held that the decedent was in no way connected with his duties at the time of the accident, hazard to which he was exposed was that of the commonality. The accident did not arise out of or in the course of the employment. 58

and the

Where an employer, as a part of the contract of employment furnished a conveyance for use of the employee in going to and from work, and the employee sustained injuries during the trip it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, the court saying: "The contract of employment between the decedent and the respondents required the decedent to work outside of the place of his residence, Willimantic, if his employers should so desire; and the respondents agreed that, while the decedent was at work in Stafford Springs, they, as a part of his contract of employment, would convey the deceddent from his home to his work and back to his home each day in an automobile provided by them. The work began when the decedent reached Stafford Springs; the employment began when the decedent boarded the automobile at Willmantic, and continued during the trip and during the work, and on the return trip to Willimantic. Transportation to and from his work was incidental to his employment; hence the employment continued during the transportation in the same way as during the work. The injury occurred during the transportation, occurred within the period of his employment, and at a place where the decedent had a right to be, and while he was doing something incidental to his employment, because contemplated by it. The case falls clearly within the construction. we have heretofore placed upon the terms of the statute arising in the course of employment.'

58. McCabe v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 177 App. Div. 107, 162 N. Y.. Supp. 741; Kowalek v. N. Y. Consol. R. Co., -App. Div.- (1920), 128 N. E. 888, 7 W. C. C. J. 215.

59. Swanson v. Latham & Crane, 92 Conn. 87, 101 Atl. 492; Kowalek v. N. Y. Consol. R. Co.,-App. Div.-, 179 N. Y. S. 637, 5 W. C. L. J. 434;

The applicant was going to his place of employment in a wagon furnished by the employer, when a shotgun, carried for the sole pleasure of another employee, exploded and so mangled the arm of the applicant as to necessitate amputation. Compensation was denied, the court holding that the accident bore no relation whatsoever to the nature of the employment. The employer did not direct that the gun be carried nor did he know it was loaded. The injured employee might have objected to the presence of the gun, or at least have seen that it was unloaded. Not doing so, he cannot shift responsibility to his employer.60

An auditing clerk was traveling upon a train of his employer from his usual place of employment to an outside office to correct the books of the latter office. During the trip an accident occurred and the clerk alighted to assist, and when boarding the train he fell under the moving train, sustaining injuries which resulted in his death. It was held that in alighting to render assistance, the deceased was not performing any duty which devolved upon him arising out of his employment.61

Where an employee took his employer's horse and carriage home, in going to dinner, which he was not supposed to do. as he was to receive his dinner at the mill where he was working, and while at his home the fly nets became entangled and he climbed out on the shafts to straighten them when the horse kicked and he fell between the shafts, sustaining injuries from which he was incapacitated for a month, it was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and compensation was denied.62

An employee engaged as a plumber going from the place where he was engaged in his employment, back to the employer's

Lindstrom v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 174 N. Y. S. 224, 3 W. C. L. J. 514; also Larke v. Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320, 12 N. C C. A. 308, L. R. A. 1916E 584.

60. Ward v. Indus. Acc. Com. of Cal, 175 Cal. 42, 164 Pac. 1123, 15 N. C. C. A. 223.

61. N. W. Pac. R. Co. v. Indus. Com., 174 Cal. 297, 163 Pac. 1000, 15 N. C. C. A. 219.

62. Wallace v. Duffus, 31 Sheriff Ct. Rep. 262 (1915) (Eng.) 12 N. C. C. A. 375.