Workmen whose duties take them away from the employer's premises A surveyor, employed by the United States, was in a surveying party using the United States steamer "Mars," the quarterboat "Illinois," and a fuel barge, which party was engaged in work along the Mississippi River. In the performance of this work it was necessary for the entire party to occupy the boats furnished by the United States Government for living quarters, taking their meals and sleeping thereon. After supper, on November 9, 1909, while the fleet was moored in the river, the decedent left the boat and proceeded to a nearby town, for the purpose of getting his pay check cashed and making some purchases. Upon returning to the boat he was met at the gangplank by the watchman with a lantern. He passed across the bow of the fuel barge, and in attempting to pass around a person who had stopped on the gangplank, he lost his balance, fell overboard and was drowned. It was held that the accident arose in the course of the employment, and that the mother of the decedent who was dependent upon him for support, should be allowed compensation. Re C. E. Hott, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 237. Applicant claimed that he was injured while riding on the footboard of an automobile owned by the defendant and in the course of his employment. Defendant protested the claim on the ground that the accident happened outside of his employment. Held that compensation was payable applicant, because the evidence showed that he and others were accustomed to leaving the warehouse owned by defendant and proceeding in an automobile to the office some distance away in order to ascertain whether overtime work would be required, and that on the night of the accident, applicant and others, including the foreman, left the warehouse several minutes before quitting time. Compensation was awarded to the amount of $88 for disability indemnity and for medical and surgical treatment. Seywald v. The Ford Motor Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., June 26, 1913. A workman, sometimes employed as a messenger, was Volunteers; acting without scope of authority sent to a branch station to get a postal order. He failed to get it there, so went to the General Post Office half a mile further on. Here he slipped on a banana skin and injured himself. The County Court judge held that as the man had exceeded his duty the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and compensation was refused. Smith v. Morrison (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 161. The foregoing appears to be a hard case and is scarcely in consonance with most of the decisions in which somewhat similar circumstances were present. A school janitor was sent on a message on a very hot day. He fainted in the street from the heat, and fell backwards, striking his head on the pavement, subsequently dying from the effects of the injury. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment. Rodger v. Paisley School Board (1912), 49 Sc. L. R. 413; 5 B. W. C. C. 547. The services of an employé regularly employed by a corporation were loaned to one of the officers and directors thereof to perform temporary services in the private business of such director and officer. While performing such services he was away from his employer's premises and on the premises of such director and officer, and the work was done under his direction and supervision. While performing such services the employé was injured. It was held that the injury was not received in the course of the employment within the meaning of § 1465-59 of the Ohio statute. Re William A. Jones, Claim No. 4173, Ohio Indus. Acc. Bd., June 4, 1913. 15. Volunteers; acting without scope of authority. (a) Cases in which damages or compensation refused. Page 456 466 (a) Cases in which damages or compensation refused. A volunteer is one who introduces himself into matters which do not concern him, and does, or undertakes to do, something which he is not bound to do, or which is not in Volunteers; acting without scope of authority pursuance or protection of any interest of the master, and which is undertaken in the absence of any peril requiring him to act as on an emergency. (E. L.) Kelly v. Tyra, 115 N. W. Rep. 636; 000 Minn. 000; aff'g 114 N. W. Rep. 750; 103 Minn. 176. A master is not liable for injuries to his servant unless the master was, at the time, in the performance of some duty for which he was employed. (E. L.) Stagg v. Edward Westen Tea & Spice Co., 69 S. W. Rep. 391; 169 Mo. 489; (E. L.) Chamlee v. Planters Hotel Co., 134 S. W. Rep. 123; 000 Mo. App. 000. If a servant undertakes work of his own motion outside the scope of his employment, without the authority of the master, or his superintendent, he acts as a mere volunteer and cannot recover for an injury resulting therefrom. (E. L.) Lewis v. Coupe, 85 N. E. Rep. 1053; 200 Mass. 182. (E. L.) Punkosski v. New Castle Leather Co., 57 Atl. Rep. 559; 4 Pennewill (Del. Super.) 544; (E. L.) Seiniski v. Wilmington Leather Co., 83 Atl. R. 20; 0000 Del. Supr. 000; (E. L.) Whiteley Malleable Castings Co. v. Wishon, 85 N. E. Rep. 832; 000 Ind. App. 000; (E. L.) Columbia Creosoting Co. v. Beard, 99 N. E. Rep. 823; 000 Ind. 000. Unless he is an emergency employé. (E. L.) Central Kentucky Traction Co. v. Miller, 143 S. W. R. 750; 147 Ky. 110. And the master is not chargeable 'with negligence for failing to warn him of his danger. (E. L.) Marshall v. Burt & Mitchell Co., 69 Atl. Rep. 183; 000 N. J. L. 000. One who volunteers to assist the servant of another in the performance of his duties can only recover for an injury suffered by showing a wilful or wanton injury, and this notwithstanding such volunteer was a minor of the age of about twelve years. (E. L.) Belt Ry. Co. of Chicago v. Charters, 123 Ill. App. 322. Where a stranger, at the request of a servant, without authority to employ other servants, voluntarily undertakes to perform services for the master, he is a mere volunteer and the master owes him no duty, except the duty he would owe to a trespasser, not to injure him Volunteers; acting without scope of authority wilfully or wantonly after his peril is discovered. (E. L.) Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Mullins, 66 S. E. Rep. 1028; 7 Ga. App. 381. Applicant had his left thumb very severely lacerated, amounting almost to amputation and resulting in a stiffening of the first or distal joint for life. He was a youth whose work did not require him to use a saw, but he had received some instruction in sawing incense cedar block slats as raw material for making lead pencils. It was stated that his work was not satisfactory and he was assigned other duties. Taking advantage of the absence of the experienced sawyer, unfortunately he attempted to experiment and met with a serious injury. Held that at the time of the accident the employé was not acting within the line of his duty and consequently compensation was denied. At the same time the defendant was criticised for not maintaining a higher measure of precaution and discipline in the operation of its plant, especially where immature lads were employed. Mederos v. Essex Lumber Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., May 13, 1913. Where decedent, having often been directed not to ride on a freight train, and knowing that the rules forbade it, voluntarily undertook to operate a brake, when he was injured while riding on the train, with the knowledge of the other employés, it was held that he was not an employé, but a mere volunteer, even if the engineer had requested him to operate the brake. (E. L.) Derrickson's Adm'r v. Swann-Day Lumber Co., 115 S. W. Rep. 191; 000 Ky. 000. Where the plaintiff was injured while he was assisting the conductor to repair a car-brake, and the conductor had no express authority to employ plaintiff, and there was no sudden emergency necessitating the plaintiff's employment, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover on the theory that he was acting as defendant's servant. (E. L.) Hendrickson v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co., 122 N. W. Rep. 758; 000 Wis. 000. Where a servant voluntarily and without direction from the master, and without his acquiescence, goes into hazard Volunteers; acting without scope of authority ous work outside of his contract of hiring, he puts himself beyond the protection of his master's implied undertaking, and if he is injured he must suffer the consequences. (E. L.) Pittsburg C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Adams, 105 Ind. 151; 5 N. E. Rep. 187. (E. L.) Chielinsky v. Hoopes & Townsend Co., 40 Atl. Rep. 1127; 1 Marv. (Del. Super.) 273. Where a servant is employed to do certain service and is injured in the performance of a different service voluntarily undertaken, the master is not liable. (E. L.) Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Moore, 59 So. 311; 000 Ala. App. 000. Where one works as a volunteer and not under an authorized contract of employment the master owes him no duty save the negative one of not injuring him after discovering his peril. (E. L.) Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Kern, 138 S. W. Rep. 988; 000 Ark. 000. If a servant voluntarily assumes, without any order, to remedy a defect in a machine, such not being part of his employment, his master owes him no duty while he is engaged in such act. (E. L.) Horn v. Arnold Schwinn & Co., 150 Ill. App. 559. (E. L.) Meller v. Merchants' Mfg. Co., 150 Mass. 362; 23 N. E. Rep. 100. (E. L.) McCue v. National Starch Mfg. Co., 142 N. Y. 106. A servant cannot recover for injuries received while acting outside the scope of his employment without the master's order, although the machinery or appliances may have been defective and dangerous. (E. L.) Boyd v. Blumenthal, 52 Atl. Rep. 330; 3 Pennewill (Del.) 564. Where an employé, without request or direction by the superintendent, volunteered to assist in ascertaining the cause of the defective condition of the machine which the employé operated, and while so doing she was caught in the machine, it was held that the negligence of the defendant in allowing the plaintiff's hand to remain caught in the machine did not give the plaintiff a right of action, since she had placed herself in a dangerous position without defendant's fault, and he was not under any legal obligation to use care and diligence in releasing her. (E. L.) Allen v. Hixson, 36 S. E. |