8

Exemption of "casual employment" depends, on nature of contract of em-
ployment and one hired for limited and temporary purpose though within
scope of master's business is within exemption. Western Union Tele-
graph Co. v. Hickman (U. S.).....
Mere fact that employment is for one job only does not necessarily make it
casual. American Steel Foundries v. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.)...... 462
Where plaintiff's contract was for fixed rate of wages employment was not
casual. Johnson v. Choate (Ill.)...

A casual employee, killed by accidental injury September 16, 1916, at plant
where hazardous employment was carried on was an "employee."
Cummings v. Underwood Silk Fabric Co., Inc., et al.-In re Travelers'
Ins. Co. (N. Y.)...
Common-law principle that employee lent to a special employer and who
assents to change, becomes servant of employer to whom he is lent, ap-
plies to cases under Workmen's Compensation Act. Scribner's Case
(Mass.)

458

923

905

Employee of one who owns steam thresher and threshes grain for farmers
under contract is a farm laborer and excepted from operation of Statute.
State ex rel. Bykle v. District Court of Watonwan County et al. (Minn.) 522
While farm laborer engaged in getting out logs was in hazardous occupation
within the Compensation Act, Sec. 3, subd. 4, he was by such section
expressly excluded from act as farm laborer-mere fact that he was en-
gaged in logging in winter did not take his work out of term "farm
laborer" as used in act. Brockett v. Mietz (N. Y.)..
Where one seeking compensation was hired as janitor, whose duty extended
to care of grounds and trimming of trees, and was injured while trimming
tree left unsightly by former attempt to trim it so as to admit light to
building, determination that he was engaged in horticulture and not en-
titled to compensation was reasonable. George v. Industrial Accident
Commission et al. (Cal.)..

688

748

§ 365.

EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Compensation cannot be had for death of servant employed in interstate
commerce although employer was not guilty of negligence. McKenna v.
New York Cent. R. Co. (Mich.).

Coal passer on interstate ferry on Great Lakes fell within jurisdiction of
federal District Court, as to admiralty jurisdiction. Thornton v. Grand
Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Co. (Mich.).

300

658

In view of statute the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply to infants
employed around dangerous machinery in violation of Acts 32d Leg. c. 46
(Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code 1916. art. 1050).. Waterman Lumber Co. v.
Beatty (Tex.)
706
Minor employed in violation of statute enacted for protection of children is
not an "employee"-in action by minor for personal injuries claimed to
have arisen from failure of employer to comply with lawful requirement
for protection of lives and safety of employees, provisions of Sec. 29 of
that act (Section 1465-76 General Code) do not apply. Acklin Stamping
Co. v. Kutz (Ohio).
Under compensation act, .boy under 18, prohibited from working at extra-
hazardous employment by statute, was not within Workmen's Com-
pensation Act, and had common-law action against employer for injuries,
though original employment was at nonhazardous work and lawful.
Kruczkowski V. Polonia Pub. Co. (Mich.)......

833

913

47

8 367. - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Contract sufficiently showed on facts stated that relation was that of sub-
contractor and contractor and not employer and employee. Mobley v.
J. S. Rogers Co. (Ind.).
Where building owner called repairing contractor and asked him to do work
and later sent plasterer in habit of doing odd jobs for him, charging
by hour or by job, such plasterer was not in employ of contractor, who
was not liable to pay compensation. Woodhall v. Irwin et al. (Mich.).. 296
Where one who contracted to wreck smokestae for $140. arranged with
decedent to supervise work for half amount, after deduction of expenses,
with further agreement that if such half did not equal $5 a day, for
time decedent devoted to work, deficiency would be made up, decedent
occupied position of foreman for contractor and as such was his em-
ployee. American Steel Foundries v. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.)..
Commission cannot enforce claims of employee of subcontractor against
principal contractor. Thaxter v. Finn, Sheriff (Cal.).
Painter working by job and by hour as to certain work connected with resi-
dence of employer and who hired his own assistants was an independent
contractor, Hungerford v. Bonn et al. (N. Y.).

462

431

682

686

One employed to cut with his own tools such timber as was best suited to his
purpose in converting it into units for which he was to be paid and
over which employer exercised no control was an "independent con-
tractor." Parsons et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.). 619
Award cannot be made against principal contractor for death of laborer
hired by one to whom principal contractor has subcontracted part of his
wood-cutting contract. Tsangournos et al. v. Smith et al.-In re Fidelity
& Casualty Co. of New York (N. Y.)...
Whether one is employee or independent contractor depends on whether
he represents the master as to the result of work or only as to the means
and if representing master only as to result and selecting means, he
is an "independent contractor"-that overseer or architect is to see that
work complies with contract does not change character of independent
contractor-manner of payment, though often significant, is not neces-
sarily controlling-if contract gives employer ro control over details of
work, but leaves that to party undertaking work, he is an "independent
contractor"-in view of act, one contracting to furnish engine, man and
team to county for daily pay was an "independent contractor." Pace
V. Appanoose County (Iowa)..
Mechanic engaged by defendant to take down smoke stack and put up new
one, who used his own appliances and furnished needed help in addition
to two men assigned by employer and who had charge of work and was
told to present his bill and whose heirs after death were paid a bill for
work by hour was "employee" and not an "independent contractor."
Cummings v. Underwood Silk Fabric Co., Inc., et al.-In re Travelers'
Ins. Co. (N. Y.)...

$368.

884

923

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT MADE OR TO BE PERFORMED
IN FOREIGN STATE.
Where Colorado contractor employed in Colorado a resident to act as fore-
man on jobs in a number of states, such employee was protected by
Colorado Act. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Etna Life Ins.
Co. (Col.)

759

$369. INJURIES OCCURRING IN FOREIGN STATE.
Act does not apply to employer who moved his plant from state before
passage of act, retaining only sales agency in state, though employee
who was injured in another state contracted with employer while plant
was in New York. Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co. et al. (N. Y.).... 540
Contractor residing at Faribault, Minn. did general contracting business
throughout the Northwest, having general office at Faribault, foreman
residing in Minnesota and hired there and injured while employed on job
at N. D. and later died, business was localized in Minnesota and employ-
ment of deceased was referable to business conducted in Minnesota and
Minnesota act. State ex rel Maryland Casualty Co. v. District Court, Rice
County, et al. (Minn.).....

§ 370. INJURIES ARISING OUT OF OR IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.

IN GENERAL.

§ 371.
Action under federal Act for injuries received while dumping ties into a
fill, evidence showed that ties and other rubbish were put into All
to strengthen and make it safer. Ohio Valley Electric Ry. Co. v. Brum-
field's Adm'r (Ky.)

"Accident" as it occurs in the Statute is used in its popular sense and means
any unlooked for mishap or untoward event not expected or designed-
"personal injury" as used refers not to some break in some part of the
body or some wound thereon but rather to consequence or disability that
results therefrom. Indian Creek Coal & Mining Co. v. Calvert et al.
(Ind.)

524

253

230

492

781

Recovery can be had by injured party, if living, or his dependents, if he is
dead, only where claimant or his decedent suffered personal injury by
accident arising out of employment. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach.
(Ky.)
Where quarry employee stopping at commissary maintained with employer's
consent was struck by stone thrown from blast and killed, injury arose
out of employment. Merlino v. Connecticut Quarries Co. (Conn.)..
Such acts as are necessary to life, comfort and convenience of servant while
at work, though strictly personal to himself and not acts of service are
incidental to service and injury sustained in their performance arises out
of employment. Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident
Commission (Cal.)
"Personal injury" as used in Compensation Act is confined to injuries of ac-
cidental origin and such diseases as naturally result therefrom and in-
cludes any form of bodily harm or incapacity caused by either external
violence or Physical force. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co. (Pa.). 927
To bring servant within Compensation Law, injury must be received while
he is doing duty he is employed to perform and also as natural incident
of work, being risk connected with employment flowing therefrom as
natural consequence. King et al. v. State Ins. Fund et al.-In re
Standard Oil Co. of New York (N. Y.).

746

921

Accident "arising out of and in course of employment" must result from risk
reasonably incidental to employment-Employers' Liability and Com-
pensation Act giving compensation for injuries arising out of and in
course of employment, was intended to protect employees against risk
or hazard taken to perform master's task. Pace v. Appanoose County
(Iowa)

To entitle claimant to compensation it must be shown that causative danger
was peculiar to work and not common to neighborhood. Malone V.
Detroit United Ry. (Mich.).

By "Accident" as employed in Statute is meant comething unusual, unex-
pected and undesigned. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach (Ky.).
Death caused by heat prostration arose out of employment only if employee,
because of particular circumstances under which he was required to
work, was subjected to special hazard from heat, not risked by public in
general. Campbell v. Clausen-Flanagan Brewery et al.-In re Brewers'
Mut. Indemnity Ins. Co (N. Y.).....

884

293

492

676

927

Under federal Employers' Liability Act, railroad was liable for injuries to
its conductor caused by an undesired emergency in air brake, if brake
was defective or engineer's act was willful. Scott v. Atlantic Coast Line
R. Co. (S. C.)....
.. 698
Death from accident in course of employment means death resulting from
unforeseen violence to physical body in course of employment, as dis- &
tinguished from ordinary or occupation diseases; "accident" being event
occurring without foresight or expectation, but casually or fortutiously.
Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co. (Pa.)..
Under Compensation Act providing for compensation for injuries, the words
"accident" and "accidental injury" include every injury suffered in
course of employment for which there was an existing right of action
when act was passed, and injuries must be traceable to definite time,
place and cause and be without affirmative act or design of employee.
Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board et al. (III.)
The act contemplates injuries by accident only, and does not cover occupa-
tional diseases-if accident causing injury is a mishap or fortuitous
happening, not expected or designed, it is an "accident in course of
employment." McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co. et al. (Pa.).

$ 373.

PARTICULAR CAUSES OF INJURY.
Not unreasonable for workmen to smoke out of doors during intervals in their
work where it does not interfere with their duties-where burlap apron
caught fire from stroke of match to smoke, and employee was fatally
burned, award was properly made and injury was su ered in course of
employment. Dzikowska v. Superior Steel Co. et al. (Pa.).....
Crossing street to mail letter was within course of employment and injury
from automobile was covered. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acci-
dent Commission et al. (Cal.)..

Mere fact that injury to employee is occasioned by sportive or malicious act
of fellow employee does not of itself establish that injury arose out of
employment, but employee injured by such means is entitled to com-
pensation. Stuart v. Kansas City (Kan.).

If employee tripped on stairs, not on account of employment, but on account
of physical or mental condition or any cause other than employment; de-
pendent cannot recover Hallett's Case (Mass.).....
Warehouse employee who went to washroom to clean up after day's work
and was killed by electric wire suffered from accident arising in course
of employment. Phil Hollenbach Co., v. Hollenbach (Ky.).
Two boys skylarking and ordered to work, ten minutes later one was struck
a blow on side of head fracturing skull, accident was risk reasonably
within contemplation of master and incident to employment, the master
having knowledge of skylarking. Mountain Ice Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas in and for Morris County et al (N. J.)...

875

930

131

31

58

281

492

532

The word "accident". as usually Interpreted in compensation statutes, will
in most cases. be applied to both heat stroke and sunstroke. Walsh v.
River Spinning Co. (R. I.)....
689

661

746

School teacher on way to boarding house from school assaulted and injured
by a man-held the injuries were not caused by accident arising out of
employment. State ex rel. Common School Dist. No. 1 in Itasca County
v. District Court of Itasca County, (Minn.).....
Where employee in wrecking buildings was burned while lighting cigarette
by match, igniting a turpentine soaked bandage on his hand, injury was
one arising out of employment, indulgence in tobacco satisfying a natural
want and being necessarily contemplated by employer. Whiting-Mead
Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.).
Under Compensation Act defining injury by accident in course of employ-
ment, death from germ infection, to be within act, must be sudden
development from some abrupt violence to physical structure of "body
and not result of gradual development from long exposure to natural
dangers incident to employment. McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co. et
al. (Pa.)
930
Death of servant from arsenical poisoning, though occurring as cumulative
result of many years' exposure to same conditions, arose from "accident"

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co.

875

or "accidental injury" under the act.
v. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.)...
Stroke from direct rays of sun, heat stroke or prostration are "accidental
injuries," within the Compensation Act-employee overcome by heat
while working at employer's lunch counter
on a hot day and who
died within two hours, suffered an "accidental injury in the course of
his employment." Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co. (Pa.)...

§ 374.

INJURY AS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.
To entitle dependent to payment of compensation, it must be found affir-
matively that injury arose out of employment. Murphy's Case. In re
Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. (Mass.)..

Rules of common law applicable in negligence cases cannot be invoked to
determine when injury arises out of employment. Phil Hollenbach Co.
v. Hollenbach (Ky.).....
Fireman employed in boiler room, overcome in afternoon by excessive heat
and afterwards taken to hospital where he died from heat exhaustion,
died as result of "personal injury sustained by accident"; the word
"accident" as used in various compensation acts not being one of precise
meaning. Walsh v. River Spinning Co. (R. I.)..

Where foreman on much-traveled highway, whose work did not require his un-
interrupted attention, was injured while crossing road to speak to friends,
injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Robinson v. State
(Conn.)
Compensation is not based on theory that employment in which person "is
engaged" is proximate cause of injury. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Bak-
ing Co. (Pa.)

(1). in general.

927

270

492

689

779

927

Employer is liable for compensation for injury sustained by workman during
short interval while awaiting arrival of material with which to work-
servant's acts of self-ministration, such as quenching thirst or satisfying
hunger or protecting himself from excessive cold, which are reasonably
necessary for his health and comfort, are incidental to employment and
acts of service within the act, although only indirectly conducive to
purpose of employment. Dzikowska v. Superior Steel Co. et al. (Pa.).... 131
Farm hand found with body crushed between seat and overhanging roof of
shed under which mules were standing, from circumstantial details held
to be an accident in course of employment. Dixon v. Andrews (N. J.).. 105
The word "mill" includes not only the buildings wherein work is done but
everything appurtenant thereto, hence carpenter engaged in manual labor
in proximity to machinery in mill, fequently so engaged is within the
act. Pellerin v. International Cotton Mills-International Cotton Mills
V. Pellerin (U. S.).....

Servant going to washroom to clean up after day's work and injured, re-
ceived injury arising in course of employment. Phil Hollenbach Co. v.
Hollenbach (Ky.)

Workman injured by collision with street car while on way to procure
materials to be used in work was injured by accident arising out of
employment. Coster v. Thompson Hotel Co. (Neb.).

3

492

526

710

859

Where track oiler was injured by automobile belonging to third party while
oiling track at street intersection, injury was not incurred at employer's
plant so as to prevent election as to remedies within Compensation Act.
Carlson v. Mock et ux. (Wash.)..
Where carpenter, employed by shipbuilding concern in construction of new
building to constitute part of plant was required to pass near galvanizing
tank while on usual way to toilet, having left work to go to toilet, was
injured by explosion of such tank, he was injured at employer's plant and
in course of employment. Welden v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation
(Wash.)
Cemetery work consists in platting, grading, planting, etc., and includes blast-
ing of concrete foundations formerly supporting water tanks. Rosedale
Cemetery Ass'n v. Industrail Accident Commission of California et al.
(Cal.)
Special night watchman at yard, who jumped from boat where he had been
making visit and drinking, either on to dock, a plank of which broke,
or into open water so that he died from exposure, was not injured
in performance of his duty. King et al. v. State Ins. Fund et al. (N. Y.). 921
(2). Injury received while going to or from work.

754

Under statute authorizing compensation for injuries while applicant is coming
from his employment "in the ordinary and usual way" no award may be
made if he uses any other than ordinary and usual way-mill hand
walking along railroad track and so reaching highway, was not, in at-
tempting to board a switch train, leaving his employment in usual way,
when he had so left it only twice in 14 years. Foster-Latimer Lumber
Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.)....
Impossible to formulate absolute test for determining whether accident
occurred while workman was acting within scope of employment as no
one test can govern all cases. Piske v. Brooklyn Coperage Co. (La.)........ 264

199

Employee directed to go to another factory to letter a trunk and received
fatal injuries from slipping on snow and ice in street while returning,
was killed by accident arising out of employment. Redner v. H. C.
Faber & Son Co. In re Frankfort General Ins. Co. In re State Industrial
Commission (N. Y.)...
Where shop employee killed immediately after day's work while walking
towards shop exit, his death arose out of employment, though on way out
of shop he was not using board walk intended to be used by employees
going to and from work, there being no enforced rule requiring its use.
Baltimore Car Foundry Co. v. Ruzicka (Md.)..
Quarry employee killed by stone thrown by blast after working hours, while
stopping at commissary to converse, killed within scope of employment
where commissary was maintained by employer. Merlino v. Connecticut
Quarries Co. (Conn.)

The transfer truck driver whose hours were uncertain and had no regular
lunch hour, who loaded his truck and left it, as customary, in street
adjacent to office during noon hour, while awaiting for freight depot to
open, and who in obeying instructions to go get the truck and go to
depot and while crossing street was struck and killed by automobile re-
ceived injury arising out of employment. Burton Auto Transfer Co. et al.
v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al. (Cal.)..
Where foreman was instructed after completion of building to take charge of
another building in another state, and, having missed the regular stage,
accepted an invitation to travel in private automobile and was killed, de-
pendents were entitled to compensation. Industrial Commission of Colo-
rado et al. v. Etna Life Ins Co. (Colo.)....

538

791

781

750

759

If employee has reached employer's premises on his way to work or is still
on premises on his way home when accident occurs, it is an accident
arising out of employment"-where one contracted with county
to do
grading work with engine, man and team for certain sum per day, in-
jury to him while moving engine to another part of work was one
arising out of employment." Pace v. Appanoose County (Iowa)...... 884

Fact that employee injured in course of employment was afflicted with
dormant disease that might some day have produced physical disability
is no reason why employee shou.d not be allowed compensation for in-
jury which added to disease, superinduced physical disability. Behan
v. John B. Honor Co., Limited, et al. (La.)...
Nonliability from disease exists only where death was in fact result of
ailment progressing naturally and disassociated from any injury that
employee may have suffered by accident. Indian Creek Coal & Mining
Co. v. Calvert et al. (Ind.)...

Disease contracted in natural and ordinary course of employment, which is
known to be a usual and customary incident to such occupation, is an
"occupational disease" and not within the act. Industrial Comission of
Ohio v. Roth et al. (Ohio)...

Accidental and unforeseen inhaling by employee, in course of employment, of
specific, volatile poison or gas, resulting in injury or death is not an
Occupational disease." Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Roth et
(Ohio)

§ 377.

67

230

829

al.

829

DEFENSES TO CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.
Under Federal Safety Appliance Act, requiring grabirons on cars, any rung
of ladder is as much a grabiron as the one on top of car. Kansas City,
M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Swift (Tex.)..
Experienced and competent fireman who knew, or should have perceived, the
dangers which he would normally and necessarily encounter in passing
over train assumed the risk. Briggs v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Kan.).... 894

378.
IN GENERAL.
Workman injured in course of performance of labor is entitled to compensa-
tion, though he cannot explain how accident occurred. Stuart v. Kansas
City (Kan.)

The Act withholding compensation for injury due to willful intention, intox-
ication, etc. does not exclude all other defenses and employer may show
that accident was not one out of and in course of employment. Piske
ν Brooklyn Cooperage Co. (La)...
Where servant was killed by contact with wire, mere fact that it may have
been placed on washbasin by some employee in spirit of horseplay would
not defeat recovery. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach (Ky.)..
Under Employers' Liability Act and Compensation Act, common-law right
of third person to recover for injuries sustained by him as consequence
of harm and injury coming upon another through negligence of de-
fendant is not barred by neglect or refusal of such other to give notices
which are conditions precedent to any right of recovery by him, by a
release, or by refusal to prosecute, since rights of third persons are not
included in terms of act. Erickson v. Buckley (Mass.)...

589

58

264

492

633