Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the necessity of his going upon the street while performing such work. He was not exposed to this danger of the street 'apart from his employment.' The causative danger was peculiar to the work, in that, had he not been on the street in the course of his duty, he would not have been injured.''87

An employee, engaged in delivering a window frame, accepted a proffered lift from a boy with a wagon and pony. The pony gave a sudden lurch, throwing the employee from the cart and injuring him. It was held that the applicant was doing work within the scope of his duty at the time of the accident and that the accident was due to a special risk incident to the employment. Therefore the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.88

Where an employee's duties required him to meet trains at a station, and while there he slipped and fell on ice, striking a rail and breaking his leg, it was held that the accident arose out of the employment, the court saying: "The conclusion that I have come to is this that it is a complete error to attribute this accident merely to what was called a 'snow risk,' ***. A railway station is, in one sense, a public place to which all members of the public have a right of access. *** To my mind a railway station is, of itself, a place where those who are employed in connection with it necessarily run risks which are not common to members of the public in the ordinary sense at all. I can scarcely conceive that if a railway porter fell from the platform to the rails, and was either injured by the fall or run over by an engine, he would not be entitled to say, apart from special circumstances, that the accident arose out of the employment; and so it would seem to me, subject to a point which I conceive to be settled by authority in the workman's favor, would be the position of the claimant in this case.

9789

87. Globe Indem. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Comm. of Cal., 36 Cal. App. 280, 171 Pac. 1088, 16 N. C. C. A. 907, 2 W. C. L. J. 31; Miller v. Taylor, 173 App. Div. 865, 159 N. Y. S. 999, 12 N. C. C. A. 192.

88. Mullinger v. Bidewell, (1917), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 51, 15 N. C. C. A. 252.

89.

Blake v. Ramsey, (1917), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 84, 51 Ir. Law Times Rep. 6, 15 N. C. C. A. 222.

A porter was delivering a parcel, and upon arriving at his destination he failed to find anyone in, and sat down to rest. While resting he fell down into the areaway below, sustaining juries from which he died. It was held that there was no evidence tending to show that the deceased was subjected to any unusual risks, and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.00

Where a section foreman was killed after mailing pay checks in accordance with his duties, and while returning home, where he was required to be on call at the time to clean switches, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment."1

In denying compensation for injuries sustained while running across a street to obtain material for his employer, the court said: "I think this is a plain case. The man was crossing the road, and was knocked down by a tramcar. There is no suggestion that he was told to run across the street. It seems to me that it is the common case of a street accident not in any way arising out of the employment. "'92

A railway policeman was struck by an engine and killed when he was crossing a track, while returning from depositing cash boxes in a bank, which was part of his duties. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment.93

A fireman, employed in the canal zone, was injured while performing service outside of the territory which was under the control of the United States. It was held that he was injured in the course of the employment.94

Where the duties of an employee consisted in setting up machinery and driving automobiles in his employer's business, and he was killed by the overturning of his automobile, it was held

90.

Kettle v. McKay & Ryland, (1916), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 297, 15 N. C. C. A. 220.

91. Papinaw v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, 155 N. W. 545, 12 N. C. C. A. 243, 189 Mich. 441.

92. 93.

Symmonds v. King, (1915), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 282.

Grant v. Glasgow & So. Ry. Co., 45 Sc. L. R. 128, (1907), 1 B. W. C. C. 17; Bett v. Hughes, (1914). 8 B. W. C. C. 362.

94. In re Claim of James Nellis, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L. (1915), 221.

that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employ. ment.95

Where a driver was killed by falling material from a building under construction on a public street, it was held that the injury. arose out of the employment.90

Where an errand boy was struck by a train while traveling a customary route on an errand for his employer delivering checks, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.97

An employee was killed when the engine he was driving crashed through a bridge. At the time of the accident the employee was moving the engine from one place, where he had completed the job he was engaged in, to another place where the engine was to be used. It was held that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.98

Where a construction foreman arrived at the place of his employment thirty minutes prior to the time for beginning work, and proceeded across the street to telephone concerning the day's work, the phone being ordinarily used for that purpose, it was held that an injury sustained in crossing the street arose out of the employment. A reasonable time before and after working hours is allowed as included within the term of employment, and the previous acquiescence of the employer in the practice of using public telephones justified the foreman in using it upon this occasion.99

Where the master of a schooner was ashore on ship's business, and slipped upon an orange peeling and fell, sustaining injuries to his hip of a permanent character, it was held that while the accident occurred in the course of the employment it did not arise

95. State ex rel. Nelson Spelliscy Co. v. District Court of Meeker County, 128 Minn. 221, 150 N. W. 623, 11 N. C. C. A. 636.

96. Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 134 Minn. 113, 158 N. W. 913. 97. Chicago Packing Co. v. Industrial Bd., 282 Ill. 497, 118 N. E. 727. 98. Påce v. Appanoose County, 184 Iowa 498, 168 N. W. 916, 2 W. C. L. J. 884.

99. Mueller Const. Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Ill. et al., 283 Ill. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, 1 W. C. L. J. 943.

out of the employment, but was a risk to which the commonalty was exposed. Compensation was denied.1

Where a salesman slipped and fell while on the way to the home of a prospective customer and fractured his shoulder, the injury was held to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment.2

Compensation was awarded for an injury received by a workman as he was returning to his employer's office after completing a piece of work for the employer at another place.3

Where a repair man on cars was injured when he went to secure a measurement from a car in the yards, his injuries were caused by an accident arising out of the employment.*

In a Kansas case it was said: "The court concludes that the word 'about,' as applied to a mine, fixes the locality of the accident for which compensation may be recovered, and that the accident must occur in such close proximity to the mine that it is within the danger zone necessarily created by those peculiar hazards to workmen which inhere in the business of operating the mine. If the accident occurs outside this zone, the distance from the mine, whether very near or very far, is immaterial. In this case the workman was a messenger who had left one mine on an errand and had not arrived at the other. He was injured on the premises of the railway company, which lay between the two mines.'

[ocr errors]

Where an employee of a commission merchant, while crossing a street, during working hours in his working clothes to get refreshments in pursuance to a custom of the employees was injured, while talking to a prospective customer. It was held the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment."

1. Chapman v. Pearn (owners of), 9 B. W. C. C. 224, 12 N. C. C. A. 368. 2. Gaffney v. Travelers' Ins. Co., Mass. W. C. C., (1913), 339, 7 N. C. C. A. 429.

3. Coeman v. Guilfoy Cornice Works, (Cal.), 1 Nat. Comp. Journ. (1914), 18, 7 N. C. C. A. 429.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

§ 272 Street Accidents. Deceased was an engineer by profession, and had no fixed hours of service. He was sent out by his employer to examine gas burners and to report back. Upon his return he arrived in the city in the night, and was struck by an automobile and killed while going home to sleep for the night. The court in holding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment said: "Since deceased was compelled to return to the city at an hour when he could not at once communicate with his superior, and had to stay somewhere until he could report, he cannot be charged with a departure from his employer's service because, when hurt, he was going to his home for a lodging rather than to a hotel; hence the findings of the referee are ample to sustain the ultimate conclusion upon which the award of compensation rests, to the effect that plaintiff's husband met his death by accident during the course of his employment with the defendant company."

A laundry driver was struck and injured by an auto truck while he was carrying laundry from a hotel to the laundry. He had forgotten to collect it when his team was hitched up, so while his horses were eating, he proceeded to carry it to the laundry, in order that it would be there on time. He sued the defendants in a common-law action, and they pleaded that all the parties were under the compensation act and that the suit should come under the compensation act. The court so held and retained the case for determination according to the compensation act. "The Court was right in holding, as a matter of law, that the injury to the plaintiff arose out of his employment. It was a street risk to which the work subjected him. This should be understood to be settled law in this state as it is generally in other states. Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 134 Minn. 113, 158 N. W. 913, 159 N. W. 565; and cases cited; Kunze v. Detroit, etc., 192 Mich. 435; 158 N. W. 851, L. R. A. 1917A, 252, Burton Auto Transfer Co. v. Ind. Aec. Com'r. (Cal. App.) 174 Pac. 72; Keaney's case, 232 Mass. 532, 122 N. E. 739; Globe Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Co., 36 Cal. App. 288,

7. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co., 263 Pa. 120, 106 Atl. 196, (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1041, 3 W. C. L. J. 786.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »