incident to his employment. But was the quay by which he was actually approaching when the accident happened a place where he was directed to be, or a place for which the employers had any responsibility at all. It seems to me that this question ought on broad principles to be answered in the negative. Surely a street in Ramsgate would not have been such a place in the absence of special-circumstances. That is clear from principles which have been firmly laid down. In order to make it such a place it would be necessary to prove as a special fact that the engineer was directed to use it for some object in which he was employed. Here there was no direction. He was allowed leave for his own purposes. "Was the quay, then, different in this respect from a street? It is said that it was, inasmuch as it was the natural way of proceeding towards the place where the ship was berthed. But a street might also have been part of such natural way.

1973

A seaman was drowned while returning from making purchases of provisions for himself, when he fell from the ladder which was the only means of access to the ship from the dock. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.7*

An employee, who was furnished living quarters on a boat by the Government, was drowned while going in a small boat to get fellow employees who had been ashore all night. It was held that the injury causing death occurred in the course of the employment.75

An engineer on a tugboat, by mistake in the location of his own boat, went to another boat, and while attempting to reach his own boat was drowned. It was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.70

76

The general rule pertaining to seamen injured in leaving and returning to their respective vessels, is that accidents sustained

73. Davidson & Co. v. M'Robb, (1918), A. C. 304; Fletcher v. "Dutchess" (Steamship Co.), 1912 W. C. & Ins. Rep. 16.

74. Moore v. Manchester Liners, Ltd., 3 B. W. C. C. 527, (1910) App. Cases 498, 79 L. J. K. B. 1175, 3 N. C. C. A. 269; Jackson v. General Steam Fishing Co., Ltd., (1909), App. Cas. 523, 2 B. W. C. C. 56, 3 N. C. C. A. 274.

75. In re Claim of Bennie House, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L. (1915), 325 76. Ocean Acc. and Guar. Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com., 173 Cal. 313, 159 Pac. 1041.

W. C.-36

after reaching the pier on leaving the ship and before leaving the pier to board the ship, or attempting to board the ship by a dangerous way, do not arise out of and in the course of the employment."

Where a seaman is rightfully away from the ship, or away on business of the ship, and is injured when leaving or returning to the ship, while using the usual means of boarding the vessel, the accident arises out of and in the course of the employment.78

§ 271. Away From Regular Place of Employment on Business of The Employer.-A cook on a boat was drowned while returning with purchased provisions. It was part of his duty to look after the securing of necessary provisions. In holding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment the

77. O'Brien v. Star Line, (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 935; 1 B. W. C. C. 177; Martin v. Fullerton & Co., (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 812, 1 B. W. C. C. 168; Gilbert v. Owners of "Nizan," (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 455, Hewitt v. "Dutchess," (1910), 102 L. T. 204; 3 B. W. C. C. 239; Fletcher v. "Dutchess" Owners of, (1911), 4, B. W. C. C. 317; Kelley v. Owners of "Foam Queen," (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 113; Nolan v. Porter & Sons, (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 106; Kitchenham v. Owners of S. S. "Johannesburg," (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 311; Mitchell v. S. S. "Saxon," (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 623; Halvorsen v. Slavesen, (1911), 49 Sc. L. R. 27, 5 B. W. C. C. 519; Frith v. S. S. "Louisianian," (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 410; Biggart v. S. S. "Minnesota," (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 68; Hyndman v. Craig & Co., 1910. 44 Irish L. T. 11, 4 B. W. C. C. 438; McDonald v. Owners of Steamship "Banana," (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 185; Craig v. S. S. "Calabria," (1914), Sc. Court of Session, 7 B. W. C. C. 932; Murray v. Allan Bros. & Co., (1913), 6 B. W. C. C. 215; Griggs v. S. S. "Gamecock," (1913), 6 B. W. C. C. 15; Lee v. Steamship "St. George," (1914), 7 B. W. C. C. 85. 78. Boucher v. Olsen & Mahoney Steamship Co., 1 Cal, I. A. C. Part 2, 248; Countryman v. Newman, (1916), 7 N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 421; Kearon v. Kearon, (1911), 45 Sc. L. T. 96, 4 B. W. C. C. 435; Trodden v. J. McLennard & Sons, (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 190; Richardson v. Owners of ship "Avonmore," (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 34; Keyser v. Burdick & Co., (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 87; Leach v. Oakley, Street & Co., (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 91; Jackson v. General Steam Fishing Co., (1909), A. C. 523, 101 L. T. 401, 2 B. W. C. C. 56; Moore v. Manchester Liners, (1908), 3 B. W. C. C. 527; Canavan v. Owners of S. S. "Universal," (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 355; Robertson v. Allan Bros. & Co., (1908), 98 L. T. 821, 1 B. W. C. C. 172; Webber v. Wansborough Paper Co., (1914), 7 B. W. C. C. 795.

court quoted the following general rules: "The Massachusetts court in McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L. R. A. 1916A, 306 tersely said: 'An injury is received" in the course of" the employment when it comes while the workman is doing the duty which he is employed to perform.' Westman, at the time of his death, according to the record, was doing, at a time, at a place and of a nature, the duties which his employment reasonably called him to perform. His injuries were received in the course of his employment. The great weight of authority sustains the view that these words 'arising out of' mean that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury which he received. Westman's accident was a natural incident of his work, the risk was one occasioned by the nature of his employment, the injury was traceable to the nature of his work and to the risks which his employer's work exposed him. We feel assured that the fatality arose out of the employment."9

A teamster who slipped and fell on the door step of a customer, while collecting a load, was held to have sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.80

Applicant went ashore on business of the ship, and after accomplishing the object of his errand started for the docks. A tram car passed, which he believed to be going to the docks and the last car of the evening, and it being his duty to get back, he tried to board the moving car and fell under it, sustaining a crushed foot. In denying compensation, the court held that the applicant had taken upon himself an added risk or peril not incident to his employment, and, therefore, that the accident did not arise out of the employment.81

An employee engaged in hauling coal discovered that there was no chute on the wagon, and in accordance with instruction crossed the street to telephone in for one. He was struck by a car when

79. Westman's case, 118 Me. 133, 106 Atl. 532, 4 W. C. L. J. 213. 80. Heinze v. Indus. Com., 228 Ill. 342, 123 N. E. 598, 4 W. C. L. J. 361. 81. Byrne v. Larrinaga Steamship Co., Ltd., (1918), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 319, 18 N. C. A. A. 1047.

crossing the street.

The court held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.82

Two employees were out on business of their employer, and their automobile, through the negligence of the inexperienced driver, collided with another car, resulting in the death of one of the employees. It was not shown that the employer had designated the one who was to drive the machine. The court said: "We con Iclude that the act of Showalter in driving the automobile at the time in question was, in view of his inexperience in the handling of that particular machine, a mere act of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury, but which act in no way interposed as a bar to prevent an award of compensation being made. ''83 Where an employee had no regular hours of employment and was ordered to convey other employees to an outside job, and on his way back the automobile skidded and turned over, resulting in the death of the employee, it was held, that since he was at the time acting under the orders of his employer the accidental injury and death arose out of and in the course of the employment.84

1783

A teamster was killed by being struck by a passing automobile, when he got down from his wagon to collect bills scattered by the wind, while he was on an errand making deliveries. In affirming an award for compensation the court said: "In the case at bar the employment of Keaney to drive a team through the public. streets and deliver goods required of him every reasonable and lawful effort to accomplish his task. His work did not require him to stay on his wagon. He was bound in the performance of his duty to use the street to deliver goods, to regain package or papers fallen from the wagon, as also to care for his horses, adjust the harness and repair the wagon, if necessary. It is manifest he might be injured while in the street in the performance of his

82. Consumers Co. v. Cieslik, Ind. App.-, 121 N. E. 832 (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1040, 3 W. C. L. J. 620; In re Samuel M. McIntire, 2nd A. R. U. S. C. C. 242.

83. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com. Cal., 39 Cal. App. 229, 178 Pac. 542, 18 N. C. C. A. 1040, 3 W. C. L. J. 577.

84. Rogers v. Rogers, Ind. App.-, 122 N. E. 778, (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1038, 4 W. C. L. J. 58.

duty, and it is plain his employment therein exposed him to the particular injury he received. ''85

A helper on a truck was killed while returning from making a delivery, when he was jolted from a running board, where he placed himself in order that he might make room for two girls, whom they picked up on the road. It was argued that because deceased gave up his place of safety in order that he might accommodate others, and not for the purpose of furthering his employer's business, he thereby departed from the course of his employment. The court of common pleas, confirming the award, said that if deceased had been injured while on the ground for the purpose of taking passengers, a different question would have been presented; but as he resumed his journey, he was undoubtedly in the course of his employment thereafter, regardless of the place where he chose to place himself on the truck. Affirming the judgment the court said: "When the husband and father of appellees was jolted from the truck of appellant, he was in the course of his employment with it. How he happened to be sitting where he was at the time he was jolted from the truck is utterly immaterial; and the judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned court below sustaining the action of the referee and the Compensation Board."

1986

Where an employee's work required that he cross a street to mail letters, and while so doing he was struck by a passing automobile, the court in holding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, said: "The conditions under which the work here was required to be performed took Roberts upon the streets in the course of his employment in exactly the same manner as that in which a factory hand is subject to the dangers. of the factory while in the course of his employment. There is a direct causal connection here between the fact trat the man was on the street and the fact that he was injured. The accident was a natural accident of his work resulting from the exposure by

85. Keaney's case, 232 Mass, 532, 122 N. E. 739, (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1039, 4 W. C. L. J. 103.

86. Siglin v. Armour & Co., 261 Pa. 30, 103 Atl. 991, 16 N. C. C. A. 895, 2 W. C. L. J. 556.