Going to and from place of employment from riding on the engine except himself and a fireman. (E. L.) Feneff v. Boston & M. R. Co., 82 N. E. Rep. 705; 196 Mass. 575. An employé of a street railway company was injured while riding on a motor car, but was not actively engaged in performing his work. It was part of his duty to ride on the car in going from one place of work to another. It was held that he was not a mere volunteer. (E. L.) Central Kentucky Traction Co. v. Smedley, 150 S. W. Rep. 658; 150 Ky. 598. A workman was employed as a laborer in connection with loading and unloading wagons, and accompanying them while being hauled by a traction engine from one quarry to another. While sitting on a wagon which was being so hauled, he dropped his pipe, and, in attempting to get down to recover it, he lost his balance and fell in front of the wheels of the wagon, which went over his leg, fatally injuring him. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. M'Lauchlan v. Anderson (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 349; 4 B. W. C. C. 376. The court applied the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Moore v. Manchester Liners (1910), A. C. 498, as follows: "I think an accident befalls a man 'in course of' his employment if it occurs while he is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is employed, and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time to do that thing." The court added "a workman of his sort may reasonably smoke, he may reasonably drop his pipe, and he may reasonably pick it up again." A miner travelling to his work stepped out on the footboard when the train was slowing up to stop about sixty yards from the station. Riding on the foot-board was expressly forbidden. The train was crowded. Other men stepping out, he moved a short way along the foot-board to make room for them and slipped and fell. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment and compensation was awarded. Watkins v. Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 307. A laborer was on a train Going to and from place of employment going to his work, when he attempted to pass from one car to another. The train was in motion and a jar or lurch caused the man to fall between two cars. The trucks passed over his body killing him instantly. It was held that the accident occurred in the course of the employment and that it was not due to the negligence of the decedent, and therefore compensation was awarded. Re Elroy Lopez, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 217. A watchman employed by the Isthmian Canal Commission, while returning from work was injured after alighting from a labor train and while walking on the adjoining track, which was the only way of reaching the highway leading to his home. It was held that the injury was received in the course of his employment and he was entitled to compensation. Re Joseph Forde, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 244. An engine cleaner who lived at King's Cross, was carried free by his employers, a railway company, to Hornsey. While crossing the tracks for the purpose of getting to the place where he worked, and shortly before the time for commencing work, he was knocked down by a passing train and killed. It was held that the employment commenced when he entered the train at King's Cross and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Holmes v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 2 W. C. C. 19. The plaintiff, when struck by defendant's car, was in the defendant's employ as foreman of a concrete gang. While his regular duties were not to be performed in and about the railroad yards, where he was injured, yet as foreman of the crew he had charge of a boarding car and a tool car which were to be placed in the yard where he and his men were working. In order to have the cars. properly placed he was hunting for the yard master when he was injured. It was held that the plaintiff could not be considered a trespasser or licensee, but the relation of master and servant still existed between him and the defendant. (E. L.) Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Balliet, 107 S. W. Rep. 906; 48 Tex. Civ. App. 641. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels A foreman, who was required at times to perform the same kind of labor that was done by the men under him, had ceased his work for the day, and departed from the premises. He was on the public highway on his way home, when he was struck by a rock thrown from a blast. It was held that as it appeared that the claimant was injured on the premises of his employer, without any fault of his own, and that at the time of the injury he had not had sufficient time to get from his place of employment to a zone of safety, that for the purposes of the Federal Act, the accident arose in the course of the employment and that the claimant was entitled to compensation. Re Nicholas Leonard, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 247. A plumber's assistant having completed his work at the home of a customer, four miles away from his employer's shop, started homeward, driving along the State highway. Soon after he passed a friend his body was found lying at the side of the road and he was unconscious. He was taken to a hospital where he died soon afterward. It was held that this was a personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employment and compensation was awarded to the widow. Sanderson v. Globe Indemnity Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. (Appeal pending to Supreme Judicial Court). Where a railroad provides hand-cars for transporting employés from the place of work to a point convenient to their homes, though the journey is commenced after the usual work of the day has ceased, the relation of master and servant continues until the employés have reached their destination. (E. L.) Cicalese v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 69 Atl. Rep. 166; 000 N. J. Law 000; (E. L.) Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. Smith, 78 Ark. 505; 95 S. W. Rep. 800. (E. L.) Wilson v. Banner Lumber Co., 32 So. Rep. 460; 108 La. 590. 3. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels.1 A seaman, when off duty, left his vessel on his own business. The vessel was then alongside the quay, but on his 1 See preceding subdivision. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels return, two hours afterward, it was some five or six feet from the pier, the top of the rail being about three feet lower than the quay. The vessel had no gangway, but a ladder was used for getting on board. On his arrival at the pier, the seaman, seeing no ladder, hailed, and, having got no answer, he jumped from the pier to the vessel, with the result that his leg struck against the rail, and he was permanently injured. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Kearon v. Kearon (1911), 45 Irish L. T. 96; 4 B. W. C. C. 435. A workman was descending the side of a ship by a rope ladder. The ladder twisted suddenly, he gave a cry, and then fell into the water. He was dead when picked up. The medical evidence was that death was due to heart failure and not to drowning and that the heart was in such a state that any slight exertion might have caused failure. The County Court judge found that death was due to accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and awarded compensation. It was held on appeal that there was evidence to support the finding. Trodden v. J. McLennard & Sons (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 190. Where a watchman on board ship whose duty it was to attend to the ship and its moorings was found drowned in the morning between the dock and the ship, an award of compensation by the County Court, based on the inference that the death arose out of the employment, in the absence of direct evidence, was sustained by the Court of Appeal. Richardson v. Owners of Ship "Avonmore" (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 34. A riveter working on a ship in dock, was about to go ashore for his breakfast. When he came on deck he found the vessel was being removed to a dry dock, and was already a short distance from the quay. The gangway had been removed, and there was no means of getting ashore except by slipping down a rope, which still held the vessel to the quay. By means of this rope a fellow workman got Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels ashore safely, and the applicant attempted to follow him. The rope gave way, and he was thrown against the quay wall and injured. It was held by the Court of Appeal that there was evidence to support the finding of the County Court judge that the accident arose out of and in the course of the man's employment. Keyser v. Burdick & Co. (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 87. The deceased was a seaman on board a steamship and had gone ashore with leave for purposes of his own. The ship was moored to another vessel, which was made fast to the quay, so that, in order to board his own ship, the deceased had first to cross the deck of the other vessel. There was evidence that the deceased, on his return, safely boarded the other vessel, and got on to the gangway between the two ships. The gangway gave way and he fell into the water and was drowned. It was held that the deceased met his death by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Leach v. Oakley, Street & Co. (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 91. A workman was employed to watch trawlers as they lay in a harbor. He was on duty for twenty-five hours, during which time he had to provide his own food, and in connection with his duties it was occasionally necessary for him to be on the quay to which the trawlers were moored. In the course of his watch he left the boats and went to a hotel near at hand for some refreshments. He was absent a very short time, had returned to the quay, and while descending a fixed ladder attached to the quay to go on board one of the trawlers, he fell into the water and was drowned. The arbitrator found that the accident to the deceased arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Act of 1906. It was held by the House of Lords that there was evidence upon which the arbitrator could so find. Jackson v. General Steam Fishing Co. (1909), A. C. 523; 101 L. T. 401; 2 B. W. C. C. 56. A fireman on board a steamship lying off South Brooklyn, went on shore for the purpose of obtaining for himself certain necessaries which were not |