A master mechanic who was informed that one of his employees was attempting to pull a truck out of a ditch, went to help the employee, and while on the way was struck by a train and killed. It was held that the death arose out of the employment.93

A truck driver was putting wood into a building of a customer by means of a hand elevator. Something went wrong with the elevator and an employee of the customer endeavored to fix it, requesting claimant's assistance. While assisting in the fixing of the elevator a splinter flew and struck him in the eye. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment."4

A driver of a milk wagon went to the assistance of another driver working for a different employer, when a horse of the latter had fallen. While assisting in getting the horse on his feet, the fallen horse kicked and injured him. There was a well established custom, known to the employers, that the milk drivers would go to the assistance of one another. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment95

Applicant, a steel dresser, was instructed by his superior to assist another employee, should she have any trouble with her machine. She called upon applicant to do some work upon her machine and while adjusting a nut he fell into the saw. The court held that the accident arose out of applicant's employment, for he was doing the very thing he was supposed to do, and although he may have been negligent or reckless, his conduct was not such as to disentitle him to compensation for the injury sustained.96

A forest ranger, shot and killed while assisting a sheriff. upon request, to arrest a deserter from the United State Army, was awarded compensation.97

93. In re Pennington, Ohio Ind. Comm., (1915), 12 N. C. C. A. 249. 94. Kaspar v. Clark & Wilkins Co., (1916), 7, N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 454. 95. Niles v. Walnut Grove Creamery Co., (1916), 3 Cal. I. A. C. 305. 96. Cars v. Vickers, Ltd., 120 L. T. R. 465, (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1031; 97. In re Rudolph E. Mellenthin, 3rd A. R. U. S. C. C. 167. Note: For further cases on this subject see "Volunteers.' Emergencies,"

and "Accidents to employees whose conduct while performing duties for the master places them outside the scope of employment."

The court in holding that an accident did not arise out of the employment said: "Defendant was an employer and was under the Compensation Act and was engaged in the conduct of his business. Plaintiff and his employer were likewise under the Compensation Act. Plaintiff was driving an automobile belonging to his employer. The automobile had been assigned to another employee of the same employer, but one doing business in other territory, and was being taken by plaintiff from a railroad station at the request of this fellow employee and solely as an accommodation to him. The evidence sustains a finding that the accident did not arise in the course of plaintiff's employment and that the case is not within the third party provision of the Minnesota Compensation Act.98

Where one of two brothers who were working together was directed to fill a tank with wax from an oil room, the death of the other while assisting without having been expressly ordered to do so, was held to have arisen out of the employment.""

$306. Bite of Animals.-An employee was bitten by a factory watch dog while performing his duties, and brought an action at law. A judgment in plaintiff's favor was reversed, because it did not appear clearly that the compensation act was not applicable. After remarking that because of the lapse of time it would be presumed that the dog remained on the premises with the permission of the defendant, the court said: "There is no doubt that the plaintiff was engaged in performing the duties of his employment at the time he was bitten. The presence of the dog, with defendant's implied knowledge and consent, was one of the physical conditions of the plant under which the defendant required the plaintiff to perform his duties. The mere fact that the direct cause of the injury was animate, rather than inanimate, does not alter the result; nor in this view can I see any force in the suggestion that the dog was not especially kept as a watchdog, or for some similar purpose (though I think the proof showed that it was so employed.) The right of the plaintiff to a recovery does not,

98. Gibbs v. Almstrom, L. J. 541.

99. Milne v. Sanders,

Minn.,

(1920), 176 N. W. 173, 5 W. C.

Tenn., (1921) 228 S. W. 702.

on any theory of which I am made aware, depend upon the comparative usefulness to the employer's business of the immediate cause of the injury.""

A workman, while eating lunch, was bitten by a cat, which was kept about the stables. The bite resulted in blood poisoning. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment.2

Where a workman while attending to his duties was bitten by a mad dog, it was held that the injury occurred during the course of the employment, and compensation was awarded.3

Claimant, while returning to work from dinner, was bitten by a mad dog. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment.*

Where a brewery employee, whose duties included delivering beer to customer's homes, was bitten by a bulldog while making a delivery, it was held that he had sustained an injury arising out of the employment."

Injury by dog bite, while one employed to deliver packages is making a delayed delivery in the morning, while on his way between his home and the place where the vehicle utilized by him in his work is stored, to procure it for his day's work, is held to arise out of the employment within the meaning of the Utah Workmen's Compensation Act.

§ 307. Bites and Stings From Insects and Reptiles.-An employee suffered from infection following insect bites. About two years later he died from heart trouble and septicemia. Applicant contended that the death was due to the infection following the insect bites. Medical testimony was to the effect that death was not caused by such infection, as the effect of the insect stings had passed off very rapidly, since the infection penetrated no deeper

1. Brone v. Brambach Piano Co., 101 N. Y. Misc. 669, 167 N. Y. S. 933, 15 N. C. C. A. 229; Hapelman v. Poole, (1908), 25 T. L. R. 155, 2 B. W. C. C. 48.

2. Rowland v. Wright, (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 192.

4. Re Alexander Green, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L. p. 223.

5.

Re Wm. Miller, 1 Bull. Ohio Ind. Com. 789.

6.

Chandler v. Indus. Comm.,

Utah - 184 Pac. 1020.

than the surface of the body. The board found that the death was not due to an accident arising out of the employment."

Bites by poisonous insects, reptiles, and animals are industrial accidents only where the injury arises out of and in the course of the employment, and the nature of the employment exposes the employee to a greater hazard of being bitten because of the nature of the employment. So, where a woman employed in a cannery was bitten by a spider during the noon hour while she was eating lunch, it could not be held that she sustained an injury arising out of the employment, in the absence of evidence that her employment exposed her to a risk, of being bitten, greater than the risk common to the public at large.

8

An injury to a workman, who was stung by a wasp while driving a threshing machine, and as a result thereof died from blood poisoning, did not arise out of the employment, but was a risk to which the employee, as well as all others, were exposed at all times."

A lady's maid was sewing in a room when a cockshafer flew into the room. In trying to drive it away, she injured her eye. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment.10

A "Spieler" for an amusement show was bitten by a gila monster that he was exhibiting to induce a crowd to patronize the show. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment."1

§ 308. Bone Felon.-An employee developed a bone felon while putting strips in metal frames by the use of pliers. The felon

7.

Campbell v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2 Mass. Wkmn. Comp. Cas. 701, 11 N. C. C. A. 507.

8. Goodwin v. Libby McNeill & Libby, 2 Cal. I. A. C. D., (1915), 211, 10 N. C. C. A. 275; Sterling v. J. B. Inderredian Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. D., (1915), 172, 10 N. C. C. A. 275.

9. Amys v. Barton, (1912), 1 K. B. 40, 3 N. C. C. A. 281, 1912), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 22, 5 B. W. C. C. 117.

10.

Craske v. Wigan, 2 B. W. C. C. 35, (1909).

11. Merritt v. Clark & Snow, 2 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 910, 12 N. C. C. A. 474.

W. C.-49

was a gradual development from the continuous us of the pliers. In denying that the claimant's injury was due to an accident arising out of the employment, the court said: "In the instant case the workman was doing the work he was employed to do, had done for nearly six years, in the way he was employed to do it, and in the way it had been done by him for a long time. That the work done by a laborer one day is harder than on other days is not an accident within the meaning of the act. There is no evidence in the record of the intervention of any untoward or accidental happening producing the injury. There was no blow or sudden strain. The felon was developed by the continuous use of the pliers. "'12

§ 309. Brights Disease.. An employee was injured, and later developed diabetes. There was no evidence that claimant was suffering from the disease prior to the accident, but on the contrary the evidence showed that he was a strong healthy man. The board found that the disease was due to the accidental injury and awarded compensation. On appeal the court held that the finding of the board was not based on mere conjecture, in view of the evidence that prior to the accident claimant was a strong healthy man.13

An employee was injured, and five days later developed acute Brights disease, but there was no blood in the urine or any other indication of physical injury. It was held that there was no evidence that the injury was the cause of the Bright's disease, and further the medical testimony was to the effect that acute Bright's disease is probably never due to traumatic origin. Therefore the disease was not due to an accidental injury arising out of the employment.14

An employee suffered an accidental strain while pulling burlap, and later developed Bright's disease. The evidence showd that

12. Perkins v. Jackson Cushion Spring Co., 206 Mich. 98, (1919), 172 N. W. 374.

13. Balzer v. Saginaw Beef Co., 199 Mich, 374, 165 N. W. 758, 15 N. C. C. A. 645.