able injury from reasonably to be expected storms of similar character were all matters incident to such a risk as was here underwritten, and therefore an injury maturing such a risk, we think, could well be said to have been incidental to and to have arisen out of that employment."'

Where a cook on a steamship gave orders to his helper to put certain articles on the stove to cook, and then left the galleys and disappeared, it was held that there was no evidence whatever to justify a finding that deceased met with an accident arising out of the employment.*

A floatman, whose duties were to check up and secure cars being transported upon a float, was, upon arrival of his float at its slip, ordered by his superior to take his belongings and go upon another float and await the arrival of a tug. A few minutes later his lantern and gears were found upon the float, and his body was found a few days later floating in the slip. It was held that there was sufficient evidence to justify an inference that deceased met his death as the result of an accident, which arose out of the employment. The case was, however, sent back on questions of dependency."

An employee was drowned as a result of ice breaking upon a pond over which he was crossing. There was a more circuitous route around the pond leading to deceased's home. The pond was on the premises and under the control of the employer. In affirming a finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, the court said: "While the employee's work for the day had been finished and he was on his way home at the time of the fatal accident, still it is settled that an injury to a workman may arise out of and in the course of his employment

3. Southern Surety Co. v. Stubbs, (Tex. App. Div.), 199 S. W. 343, 15 N. C. C. A. 276; Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Indus. Comm., 153 Wis. 635, 150 N. W. 998, 12 N. C. C. A. 76; Cino v. Morton & Gormon, Contracting Co., 5 N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 387, 12 N. C. C. A. 79.

4. Lynch v. Crown Steamship Co., Ltd. 32 Sheriff Ct. Rep. 135, 12 N. C. C. A. 68; Burwash v. Frederick Leyland & Co. Ltd., (1912), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 400, 107 L. T. 735, 5 B. W. C. C. 663.

5. Tirre v. Bush Terminal Co., 172 N. Y. App. Div. 386, 158 N. Y. Supp. 883, 12 N. C. C. A. 64.

even if he is not actually working at the time of the injury." The court said that the finding that the pond was in the control of the employer and that the crossing over it on the ice was "the reasonable and customary way" for deceased to reach his home, and that he and other employees who lived in the same direction. "crossed it this way regularly," warranted the further finding that the injury occurred in the course of the employment."

A workman, who was employed in building a bridge over a river, was last seen alive at his home, some miles from where he was employed, which was about two hours before he was to return to work. His body was afterwards found in the bay, but there was no evidence as to how he came to his death. It was held that, in the absence of evidence, it might be inferred that deceased came to his death by accident, but it could not be inferred that the accident arose out of the employment."

A workman, whose duty it was to remove rubbish from a flume, which supplied water for his employer's mill, was seen standing on an unrailed walk, using a rake, with his back towards the river. A few days later his body was found in the water, together with a rake handle. It was held that the evidence justified a finding that he was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.8

Where a servant was drowned in an attempt to save the life of a fellow servant, it was held that his death was due to an accident arising out of the employment."

A deck hand, who helped load and unload a barge at its terminii, was drowned while riding between such terminii. It was held that the death was due to an accident arising out of the employment, even though he had no active duties to perform while enroute.."

6. In re Stacy, 225 Mass. 174, 114 N. E. 206, 15 N. C. C. A. 244.

7.

Henry Steers Inc. v. Dunnewald, 85 N. J. L. 449, 89 Atl. 1007, 4 N. C. C. A. 676.

8. Boody v. K. & C. C. Mfg. Co., 77 N. H. 208, 90 Atl. 859, 5 N. C. C. A. 840, L. R. A. 1916A, 10.

10. Rideout Co. v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal, 132, 159 Pac. 435, 12 N. C. C. A. 1032.

A traveling salesman was drowned when the steamship Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine. The salesman was enroute to London on his master's business and with his master's knowledge. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment, irrespective of the lawfulness of the attack.11

§ 321. Electrical Shock and Electrocution.-An employee was electrocuted when he took hold of an electric wire for the purpose of attaching it to a bucket, with which to draw gasoline from a tank. There was a goverment order against the using of gasoline for promiscuous purposes, but this order seems to have been disobeyed to the knowledge of the employer. The board made an award for deceased's death. In affirming the award, the court said that, "an employee, who, in an honest attempt to discharge a duty assigned him, does an act incidental thereto not specifically directed, or departs from the usual methods of performing his work, does not thereby necessarily deprive himself or his dependents, of a right to compensation, if injured while so engaged;" that, "an employee may be said to receive an injury by accident arising in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act of this state when it occurs within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is doing something reasonably connected with the discharge of the duties of his employment.""12

Where a warehouse employee, who went into a wash room to clean up after the day's work, was killed by an electric wire carrying 114 volts of current while he was in the act of washing in a basin provided by the master, the wire having been used in the master's business, it was held that he suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The mere fact that the wire may have been placed on the wash basin in a spirit of horseplay, would not defeat a recovery of compensation if the deceased himself was not engaged in the horseplay, and the fact that the current which was only 114 volts, would not ordinarily

11. Foley v. Home Rubber Co., 89 N. J. L. 474, 99 Atl. 624.

Note: For additional cases on drowning, see section 270.

12. Nordyke & Marman Co. v. Swift, (Ind. App.), 123 N. E. 449, (1919), 18 N. C. C. A. 1021.

kill a strong man is immaterial, if it is shown by the evidence that it produced fatal results in the present case.13

Where a carpenter, engaged in work upon one of defendant's cars, came in contact with an electric wire carrying 550 volts of current and was electrocuted, it was held, in the absence of any direct evidence as to the circumstance surrounding the accident, that the death was caused by an accident arising out of the em ployment.14

A lineman, in the employ of the Mississippi River Power Company, who was not an expert in this particular business but was a helper of one of the experts, came in contact with that portion of the electric field from which the current had not been excluded and was killed. The court, in holding that the accident arose out of the employment, said: "Hayward was employed in repairing the tower, and the prohibition against going near the live wire referred to his conduct in doing that work. There is no evidence that he had undertaken to do anything outside of his employment. While no one testified to the particular act he was doing at the time he was struck, if he was doing anything, it is evident that he was on the tower for the purpose of doing his work in the course of his employment, and his contributory negligence in carelessy failing to observe the direction not to go near the live wire does not relieve his employer from liability to make compensation. The theory of the defendant in error is that Hayward deliberately disobeyed orders and walked across the rack into the field of the live wires. The conclusion may fairly be drawn from the evidence that through his inexperience or carelessness he moved too close to the live wires, and in such case the determination of the commission concludes the court. ''15

13. Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach, 181 Ky. 262, 204 S. W. 152, 2 W. C. L. J. 492, 16 N. C. C. A. 879; Newport Hydro. Carbon Co. v. Indus. Com. of Wis., 167 Wis. 630, 167 N. W. 749, 2 W. C. L. J. 421, 16 N. C. C. A. 924.

14. Bloomington D. & C. R. Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Ill., 276 Ill. 454, 114 N. E. 939, 14 N. C. C. A. 140.

15. Mississippi River Power Co. v. Indus. Comm., 289 Ill. 353, (1919), 124 N. E. 552, 5 W. C. L. J. 50.

Where a carpenter in a shop was killed by an electric current when he attempted to turn on the current by means of a switch, for the purpose of putting in motion a grindstone, on which he was going to sharpen a chisel, it was held that in so doing he was acting within the scope of his employment and that his death was due to an accident arising out of the employment1o

An experienced lineman refused to use gloves furnished by the employer. This was in violation of positive rules against handling hot wires without rubber gloves, and was also in violation of an express order from the foreman at the time. The employee came in contact with the wire and received a shock causing his death. It was held that the decedent was guility of such wilful misconduct as to place him without the scope of his employment, and was not injured by an accident arising out of the employment.17

A janitor in defendant's office building was furnished by the defendant with living quarters. His wife was managing a restaurant for defendant. Upon request of his wife, he started to carry a basket of laundry to the restaurant, and was killed by a live wire falling on him. It was held that the duties of deceased did not include carrying of laundry or assisting his wife in the care of the restaurant, and therefore the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.18

§ 322. Emergency. Where an employee in a shirt cutting factory volunteered to save his employer and others from injury during a raid by strikers and, in so doing was fatally injured, it was held that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, the court saying: "While there must be some

16. Wendt v. Indus. Ins. Comm of Washington, 80 Wash. 111, 141 Pac. 311, 5 N. C. C. A. 790; Houghton v. W. G. Root Const. Co., 35 N. J. L. J. 332.

17. Great Western Power Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 180, 149 Pac. 35, 9 N. C. C. A. 466.

18. Murphy v. Ludlum Steel Co., 182 App. Div. 139, 169 N. Y. S. 781, 1 W. C. L. J. 1122.

Note: For further cases of electric shock and death from electrocution see "Acts Not Constituting Wilful Misconduct." § 283, note 15 and 19 see also "Acts Constituting Wilful Misconduct, § 284, note 40. See Sportive Acts § 285, note 54 and 59.