ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Getting drink of water

defendant was therefore not liable. (E. L.) Allen v. Chehalis Lumber Co. 112 Pac. R. 338; 000 Wash. 000.

A telephone lineman while going to luncheon slipped on wet steps and was injured. It was held that the injury did not occur in the course of the employment. Ruling of Washington Industrial Commission.

An employer (who is allowed to come under the Washington Act) was injured while going to supper down a log chute and it was held that this was not in the course of employment. Ruling of Washington Industrial Commission.

12. Getting drink of water.

A servant employed on a railroad in repairing the track, does not cease to be a servant, nor is he out of the line of his duty, when, for a few minutes, he actually quits work in order to obtain a drink of water. (E. L.) Jarvis v. Hitch, 000 Ind. App. 000; 65 N. E. Rep. 608. An employé has a right to pass over the ways provided for his master, in going to and from a place where he can obtain water to quench his thirst, and has a right to the same protection he is entitled to without actually working, whether the water is provided by the employer or the servant. (E. L.) Birmingham Rolling Mill Co. v. Rockhold, 42 So. Rep. 96; 143 Ala. 115. While the mere act of getting water is not a part of the duties of the employé, yet it is a physical necessity which must be attended to while the employé is engaged in his duties, and he is entitled to the same protection in the interval when he leaves his work to get water as when he is actually at work, and whether the water is provided by the employer or by himself the employé has a right to pass over the ways provided by the employer, in going to and from the place where his thirst is slaked. (E. L.) Re Birmingham Rolling Mill Co. v. Rockhold, 143 Ala. 115; 42 So. Rep. 96.

Where a brakeman on a freight train went into the cab of a locomotive of another train to secure a drink of water,

Attending to call of nature

and while there for that purpose the two trains collided, and he was killed, it was held that there could be no recovery, although the collision was due to the negligence of the railroad company's servants, as the deceased was not in the discharge of any duty to the master. (E. L.) Shadoan's Adm'r v. Cincinnati N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 82 S. W. Rep. 567; 26 Ky. Law Rep. 828.

13. Attending to call of nature.

Where toilet conveniences for employés were provided by the master in the boiler room, it was held that an employé going there to use them, was still in the employ of the master. (E. L.) Neice v. Farmers' Co-operative Creamery & Supply Co., 133 N. W. Rep. 878; 000 Nebr. 000. When a railroad company had not provided any convenient closet for the use of its employés, it was held that a section foreman was not a trespasser in passing over a side track, on which he was struck and injured, on returning from answering a call of nature. (E. L.) Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Turner, 91 S. W. Rep. 562; 99 Tex. 547. During the dinner hour a man met with an accident when returning from a place where he had gone to relieve nature and it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Elliott v. Rex (1904), 6 W. C. C. 27. In the last-mentioned case the court refused to follow the decision in the case of Pearce v. London & South Western Ry. Co. (1899), 2 W. C. C. 152, where it was held that when a man was injured when going to relieve nature during the breakfast hour that the accident did not arise out of the employment.

A workman instead of going to the proper place for a necessary purpose went into a confined space underneath a table engine and stepped into boiling water, in a cistern which was sunk into the ground to receive the escaping hot water from the engine. It was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Thomson v. Flemington Coal Co. (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 740; 4 B. W. C. C. 406.

Workmen whose duties take them away from the employer's premises

Where a train dispatcher, although having the right to cross the tracks of a railway company by which he was employed, to reach a closet provided by the company for its employés, went between the cars at another place, for his own convenience, and not in the discharge of any duty, it was held that the company did not owe him any duty except to avoid injuring him after discovering his peril. (E. L.) Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hocker, 64 S. W. Rep. 638; 111 Ky. 707; same case, 65 S. W. Rep. 119; 111 Ky. 707.

14. Workmen whose duties take them away from the employer's premises.

An agent who is making a house-to-house collection of premiums and meets with accidental injury is entitled to compensation. Refuge Assurance Co. v. Millar, 49 Scotch L. R. 67. An injury occurring to a salesman while he was on his way to the home of a prospective customer, was held to arise out of and in the course of his employment. Gaffney v. Travelers Insurance Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. As a rule, commercial travelers may be regarded as acting in the course of their employment so long as they are traveling on their employer's business, including the whole period of time between their starting from and returning to their place of business or home. Dickinson v. Barmak (1908), 124 L. T. Newspaper, 403.

An employé's duty was to drive a light delivery wagon drawn by a horse which was used in making deliveries, obtaining supplies, etc., and when not so employed to work in the shop of his employer. It was also a part of his duty to take care of the horse, which he drove, and in so doing to take the horse and wagon to his home in the suburbs, on Saturday afternoons, in order to give the horse Sunday pasture, and to drive it back to the city on Monday mornings. He was injured on a Monday morning while caring for the horse preparatory to driving to the city. It was held that the injury was received in the course of the employment.

Workmen whose duties take them away from the employer's premises Re James L. Chase, Jr., Claim No. 3493, Ohio Indus. Acc. Bd., May 19, 1913.

A chief engineer having supervision of several plants where his duties consisted in overseeing the installation, was engaged much of his time in traveling from one plant to another. On the day he received the injury, which resulted in his death, he slipped and fell in attempting to board a street car and sustained a fracture of the skull. The following day he spent the greater part of his time at the office of the company, but complained of a severe headache. Symptoms of brain pressure became evident and he subsequently died. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd., June, 1913.

A canvasser and collector, employed to go round calling on customers, usually went on his bicycle. This was not necessary, but his employers who knew of the practice, neither ordered him to do so, nor forbade him to do it. While traveling on a bicycle he collided with a tramcar and was killed. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment. Pierce v. The Provident Clothing and Supply Co. (1911), 104 L. T. 473; 4 B. W. C. C. 242.

A salesman and collector while riding in a street upon a bicycle, in the course of his employment, was kicked on the knee by a passing horse and injured. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment. M' Neice v. Singer Sewing Machine Company (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 15; 4 B. W. C. C. 351.

A railway policeman, a part of whose duties it was to take cash boxes and deposit the contents in a bank in the town, was returning from such a trip when he was crossing a railway track over a way which was sometimes used by the employés. An engine being shunted down these tracks hit and killed the policeman. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment and that his dependents were entitled to compensation. Grant v. Glasgow and

Workmen whose duties take them away from the employer's premises South Western Railway Co. (1907), 45 Scotch L. R. 128; 1 B. W. C. C. 17.

A workman in an iron works went from his furnace to the blacksmith's shop, the route running along a canal bank. Not returning, he was sought for and some hours later he was found drowned in the canal. The County Court judge, in the absence of direct evidence as to how the man came to be in the canal, inferred that the accident arose out of the employment and awarded compensation. This award was affirmed on appeal. One of the justices stated that suicide being a crime, could not be inferred. Furnivall v. Johnson's Iron and Steel Co. (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 43.

A servant for whom his master was obliged to provide lodging, was directed by the master to go to a town, on a dark night, and to go through a field, out of which there was no road. The servant took direct route to the town and was injured by falling into a hole dug by the master, and it was held that the injury was received in the course of the employment. (E. L.) Indiana Pipe-Line & Refining Co. v. Neusbaum, 52 N. E. Rep. 471; 21 Ind. App. 361.

Claimant was on his way from the cut, where he was at work to the field office, for the purpose of securing a commissary book. His route lay parallel between two railroad tracks. Just before reaching a point where the two tracks were joined by a switch, it became necessary for him to cross one of the tracks, which lay between him and the field office. While doing this cinders were blown into his eyes from a train which was on the other track, momentarily blinding him. At this moment a train, going in the opposite direction, at about ten miles an hour, came along. The engineer blew the whistle, which was heard by the claimant, but before he could recover his composure and get out of the way he was struck by the engine, resulting in the loss of his right foot. It was held that the injury occurred in the course of the employment and that the claimant was entitled to compensation. Re Popanx Papius, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 249.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »