Accident.-Evidence held to show sunstroke caused employee's death. Hernon
v. Holahan et al.-In re London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited
(N. Y.)
Accident.-Evidence that brickmaker, previously in good health, when at-
tacked by vertigo or some similar disorder, while on brick pile some
15 feet above ground fell and was injured, held, to sustain Commission's
finding that injury was accidental. Santacroce V. Sag Harbor Brick
Works. In re Travelers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.)...
Accident.-Collector for brewery killed in saloon away from plant was within
protection of act which includes employees in service of employer carry-
ing on hazardous employment, although not actually engaged in hazard-
ous employment-where one was intentionally shot and killed for pur-
pose of robbing him there was "accidental injury." Spang v. Broadway
Brewing & Malting Co. In re Central & Western New York Brewers'
& Maltsters' Mut. Ins. Co. (N. Y.).....
Accident Defined.
(SEE WORDS AND PHRASES.)
Act of God.-Assistant engineer accidentally drowned while on board dredge
because of violent storm, recovery could not be defeated because the
accident was an act of God. Southern Surety Co. vs. Stubbs et al.
(Tex.)
Act of God.-Employee of county required to work on steel grader while
thunderstorm was threatening was not exposed to more than normal
risk which people of community generally are subject to and there
could be no recovery for his death from lightning under act. Wiggins
v. Industrial Accident Board (Mont.)......
Action for Damages.-Barred where widow and dependent, by her attorneys,
filed claim for compensation. Gray v. Brown & Sehler Co. (Mich.)....1081
Affidavit.-Commission might receive affidavits of father and mother of de-
ceased, residing in Ireland and taken before commissioner of oaths of
state of New York, as bearing upon their dependency-liability to pay
compensation governed by statute in force at time of accident. Moran
et al. v. Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc. (N. Y.).
(SEE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE.)
Agricultural Laborers.-Separator man on threshing outfit going from
farm to farm and owned and operated as a business, is not an agricultural
laborer within the act, which exempts such laborers from compensation
for injuries. In re Boyer (Ind.).
Aliens. Under the act as provided, the commission may, after commuting
an award payable to aliens entitled to compensation for death of servant
and expected shortly to depart from country set aside the commutation
of award. the aliens having elected to remain in the country for the
purpose of provision for periodic payments is obviously to preclude the
beneficiaries under the act from becoming public charges. Spaduccino
vs. John G. Hayes & Co.-In re Royal Indemnity Co. (N. Y.).
Aliens.
The act, providing for compensation to alien nonresidents etc. does
not grant compensation but limits grants otherwise made support of
applicants for year prior to accident controls-the word "or" does not
restrict compensation to one parent, if both have been supported, but
means "either." State Industrial Commission vs. McCormick et al.-In
re Casella et al. (N. Y.)
Alien.-Wife of servant is not debarred from recovery under Workmen's
Compensation Act for his death by reason of fact that she is a non-
resident alien. In re Mooradjian-In re London Guarantee & Accident
Co., Ltd. (Mass.)
Aliens. Alien dependents, subjects of a friendly nation, are not excluded
from benefits of the act. In re McDonald-In re Employers' Liability
Assur. Corp., Ltd. (Mass.)
Aliens. Alien nonresident dependents are entitled to compensation under
the act. In re Pagnoni-In re Contractor's Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
(Mass.)
Appeal and Error.
(SEE REVIEW.)
Application of Particular Section.
Application of Particular Section.-Where employee suffers loss of a mem-
ber or the destruction of a physical sense for which provision is
specifically made by Workmen's Compensation Act, or suffers injury re-
sulting in permanent partial disability, for which provision is not
specifically made by the section, compensation must be awarded under the
section, and, when awarded, is in lieu of all other compensation for the
particular permanent partial disability, the section not in terms ex-
cluding compensation for other injuries suffered in the same accident
for which provision is made by other sections of the act, and not purport-
ing to cover cases of the loss of two or more members of a particular
class, unless the injury results only in a permanent partial disability.
In re Denton-In re Good (Ind.).....
Application of Particular Section.-Loss by separation of part of foot, in-
volving loss by separation of all toes of foot-period of compensation
must be determined by board under part of the act providing that in all
other cases of permanent partial disability, which may impair future
usefulness, compensation shall be paid when and in amount determined
by board, not to exceed 55 per cent of average weekly wages for period
of 200 weeks, but compensation should not be awarded for a longer
period than provided in section 31, cl. "e". In re Cannon (Ind.)......
Assault. Collector for brewery killed in saloon away from plant was with-
in protection of act which includes employees in service of employer
carrying on hazardous employment, although not actually engaged in
hazardous employment-where one was intentionally shot and killed for
purpose of robbing him there was "accidental injury." Spang v. Broad-
way Brewing & Malting Co.-In re Central & Western New York Brewers'
& Maltsters' Mut. Ins. Co. (N. Y.)....
Assault. Because skylarking of boys employed in plant came under observa-
tion of president and superintendent, those officers were thereby charged
with contemplating that the same thing might occur again; that is,
Skylarking or horse-play, not that one boy might thereafter commit an
atrocious assault upon another. Mountain Ice Co. v. McNeil et al.
(N. J.)
Assault. Where employee assaults another solely to gratify his feeling of an-
ger or hatred, injury results from voluntary act of assailant and cannot be
said to arise out of employment, but it is otherwise where injured em-
ployee is defending his employer or his property or interest, or when
assault is due to some duty of employment-fight over ladle resulting
in death of employee, injury did not arise out of decedent's employ-
ment. Jacquemin et al. v. Turner & Seymour Mfg. Co. (Conn.)........ 934
Assignment of Error.
(SEE REVIEW.)
Assumption of Risk.-Rule that where servant continues to work, knowing
of master's negligence, imperiling his safety, without complaint or
promise to repair, he assumes the risk, is abolished by the act. Mitchell
v. Swanwood Coal Co. (Iowa)....
Attorney In Fact.-An unauthenticated letter written by Austrian father to
third person not relative, purporting to authorize him to apply under
act constituted no legal authority. Western Indemnity Co., Inc., et al.
vs. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.)...
(SEE COSTS, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.)
Authorized agent.-Evidence insufficient to warrant finding that one who
contracted to paint a house was agent of the latter, with authority to
hire such labor as he might see fit. Kackel et al. vs. Serviss-In re
Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited (N. Y.)
Authorized Agent.-Foreman in full charge of employees is an "agent.'
Simmons (Me.)
Authorized Agent.-Notice by yard conductor to yard switchman of injury
was not notice to company. Herbert v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co.
(Mich.)
Autopsy. Refusal by next of kin to consent to autopsy does not deprive Board
of jurisdiction to proceed to final disposition of the case-employer
waived right to autopsy where it made no objection before Board until
after trial and award. Indianapolis Abattoir Co. v. Bryant (Ind.).... 968
Award. To sustain award there must be competent evidence fairly tend-
ing to show that injuries were accidental and arose out of and in course
of employment. C. E. Peterson & Co. vs. Industrial Board of Illinois
et al. (In.)
Award.-Incumbent on claimant to show it to be for best interests both of
her and of employer to have compensation commuted. Schwarm V.
George Thomson & Sons Co. (III.).
Award. Must be sustained if there is any evidence to support its finding
that injured person was employee of party for whom compensation is
sought. Yolo Water & Power Co. V. Industrial Acc. Commission of
California et al. (Cal.).
Award.-Notice that award would be amended unless good cause was shown
against it within ten days was not improper-where insurer and em-
ployer did not attack finding of original award that injured employee
was employee of master, it could not on proceeding for amending of
award contend that relationship did not exist. Massachusetts Bonding
& Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al. (Cal.). 484
Award.-Where award having been mistakenly approved was set aside as
soon as discovered. it was not binding, and board could make a new
and proper award though insurer paid the second award. Wilcox v.
Clarage Foundry & Mfg. Co. et al. (Mich.).
Award.-Final award of Industrial Board would bind all parties before un-
less prior thereto insurer manifested its objection. Southwestern
Surety Ins. Co. v. Curtis et al. (Tex.)....
Award.—In view of the Federal Eemployer's Liability Act no award for
death of conductor could be made; the fact that railroad company ac-
cepted the act not showing a consent that it should apply on its inter-
state transactions. Carey v. Grand Trunk Western Co. (Mich.)....
Award.-Lump sum judgment, although statute forbids its assignment, does
not abate by employee's death, but may be revived in name of adminis-
trator. Monson v. Battelle (Kan.)
Award.-Made to both parents. Relative extent of dependency individually
must be found, joint award being improper. In re Pagnoni-In re Con-
tractor's Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.).
Award. Where commissions made award for permanent partial disability
because of loss of eye, without having it brought to its attention that
by reason of previous injury to other eye disability was total and had
power to modify award, after claimant's time to appeal had expired.
Kreigbaum v. Buffalo Wire Works Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y.)..
Blood Poisoning.-Evidence sufficient to sustain finding that deceased work-
man died from blood poisoning as result of injury arising out of and in
course of employment. State ex rel. Albert Dickinson Co. et al. vs.
District Court, Hennepin County et al.-Rackman vs. Albert Dickinson
(Minn.)
Boards and Commissions, Powers of
(SEE POWERS AND JURISDICTION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.)
Burden of Proof.-Cases brought under the act do not differ from ordinary
civil action in respect that burden is on petitioner. Zeitlow vs. Smock
(Ind.)
Burden of Proof.-Master who rejects Workmen's Compensation Law is
presumed negligent and burden is on him. Mitchell vs. Des Moines Coal
Co. (Iowa)
Burden of Proof.-Plaintiff having proved that intestate sustained fatal
injury while performing duties in defendant's mine, and that latter had
rejected terms of Workmen's Compensation Act, burden not only shifted
to defendant to show its freedom from negligence, but proof of injury
stood as substantive evidence of employer's negligence. Mitchell vs.
Phillips Mining Co. (Iowa)
Burden of Proof.-Burden of proof is met by applicant by any evidence,
though slight, sufficient to make a reasonable man conclude in favor of
applicant. Haskell & Barker Co. vs. Brown et al. (Ind.)..
Burden of Proof-Burden of proof is on applicant for compensation to
prove by preponderance that she is dependent of deceased, that he re-
ceived injury resulting in death arising out of employment. Haskell &
Barker Car Co. vs. Brown et al. (Ind.).
Burden of Proof.-Employee has burden of establishing facts necessary to
support a conclusion that accident arose out of employment. Inland
Steel Co. vs. Lambert (Ind.)
Burden of Proof.-Applicant for compensation had burden of proving by
preponderance of evidence that injuries arose out of employment. Grif-
fith vs. Cole Bros. et al. (Iowa.).........
Burden of Proof.-Burden is on claimant to furnish evidence from which
inference can reasonably be drawn that injuries or death was caused by
accident arising out of employment. Sugar Valley Coal Co. v. Drake
(Ind.)
Burden of Proof.-Is on one asserting right to recovery of compensation.
In re Derizna. In re Pucci. In re Contractors' Mut. Liab.ity Ins Co.
(Mass.)
Burden of Proof.-Burden of proof upon employee to establish that his
hernia was caused by an accident which he suffered while in employer's
service. Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.).
Burden of Proof.-In proceeding for compensation for death of railroad serv-
ant, burden is on petitioner in court of first instance within New Jersey
statute, that is to show affirmatively that decedent was engaged in
intrastate service. Lincks v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.)..
Cancer. Finding of commission that cancer resulted from fall of workman
supported by evidence. Santa Ana Sugar Co. of Santa et al. v. In-
dustrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.).
company. held
Baer's Express
Casual Employment.-Death of boy employed by express
not entitled to compensation for injuries under the act.
& Storage Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..
Casual Employment.-Employee killed while engaged in work dynamiting
stumps on township road, held under evidence such work was a mere
casual or incidental employment and that intestate was not an "employee"
within the meaning of the act. McLaughlin, Commissioner of Highways,
v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).
Casual Employment.-Purchaser of grain on cars, owing to shortage of cars,
casually employed applicant to help load grain left by sellers on plat-
form, was not liable to pay compensation, the work not being in the
usual course of business. Carter V. Industrial Acc. Commission of
California et al. (Cal.)....
Casual Employment.-Relator engaged in retail sale and delivery of coal;
one of his loaded wagons became mired and the driver in charge thereof
requested plaintiff who was passing the scene to assist in releasing
wagon and in complying was injured. Held. that plaintiff was relator's
servant and employee and the driver had implied authority to employ
him for temporary purpose and plaintiff is entitled to appropriate re-
lief under Workman's Compensation Act. State ex rel Nienaber v.
District Court of Ramsey County et al. (Minn.)..
Casual Employment.-Where company engaged in nonhazardous employment,
hired carpenter by hour to put shelving in store and he was injured,
employer was not liable to pay compensation to such employee, since
casual engagement of carpenter by hour does not make proprietor en-
gaged in structural carpentry. Geller vs. Republic Novelty Works. In
re Commercial Casualty Co. (N. Y.)..
Casual Employment.-Where the servant was employed casually, not under
contract, but on various odd jobs, as a plasterer in repairing a building
for defendant, who owned and operated an apartment house, he was not
in the employ of the company in a business declared hazardous by the
Workmen's Compensation Law. Solomon v. Bonis-In re General Acci-
dent. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. (N. Y.)...
Casual Employment.-One who kept machinery and boats in order in amuse-
ment park and another who acted as watchman, who had no other oc-
cupation, were not casual employees. Boyle v. Mahoney- & Tierney.
(Conn.)
Casual Employment.-Carpenter employed for over three months at day
wages was an employee and entitled to compensation. Armstrong v.
Industrial Accident Commission of State of California et al. (Cal.).
Casual Employmyent.-Owner of hotel is not pursuing his business with-
in meaning of the act when he causes rooms to be occasionally painted
and decorated, although it is usual to have work like that done from
time to time. Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co. et al. (Mich.)..........1076
Certification of Questions.
Certification of Questions.-Where full Industrial Board, before rendering
an award, certified questions to be answered by Appellate Court, under
section 61 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which the court an-
swered, such answer was not res adjudicata of the questions involved,
nor did fact that a third person was permitted to file briefs as amicus
curiae change the character of proceeding, since it was not adverse in
character and there were no issues in technical or legal sense. Bimel
Spoke & Auto Wheel Co. v. Loper (Ind.)..
Claim. Where employee asked foreman and attorney of employer whether
he was under the act and they informed him he was and that claim
would be paid there was sufficient claim for compensation.
way Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...
(SEE POWERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.)
![[merged small][ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.hk/books/content?id=Kg4WAAAAYAAJ&hl=zh-TW&output=html_text&pg=PT15&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22An+act+prescribing+the+liability+of+an+employer+to+make+compensation+for+injuries+received+by+an%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1nV1oONlbaPL8f50-05JeEnOsL3g&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=782,273,22,183)
Common Law Defense.-Section 26 of the Act does not operate to deny an
employer, engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, his
common-law defense in action brought by one of its employes for injury
received while peforming work pertaining distinctly to intrastate com-
merce, etc. Barnett vs. Coal & Coke Ry. Co. (W. Va.)...
Common-Law Defenses.-Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1912, No. 10,
pt. 1, section 6, subjecting employer to the provisions of the act after
the approval of board of a statement by employer accepting the pro-
visions of the act "from the date of the filing of such statement where
an employer's statement, electing to come under the act, was filed before
the accident to an employee who had not elected, he was within the
direct provisions of section 3, providing that section 1. abolishing
common-law defenses, shall not apply to actions to recover damages,
where the employer has elected, with the approval of the board, to pay
compensation under the act. Bernard vs. Michigan United Traction Co.
(Mich.)
Common-Law Defenses.-Where master has not
elected to come under Work-
men's Compensation Act, the common-law defenses were foreclosed to
him, so that where servant was injured by falling down stairway, alle-
gations of answer that plaintiff was familiar with stairway, knew it was
usually lighted. etc., come within defenses of assumption of risk and
contributory negligence. Wulff v. Bossler (Mich.)..,.
Compliance.
Compliance.-Mere filing of notice of acceptance with Industrial Com-
missioner, was not substantial compliance without posting any notice,
though the posted notice of rejection was torn down, and there was
rumor or general talk among employees that employer had accepted
statute, though injured employee could not talk or read English, so
that posted notice would have been unavailing. Paucher vs. Enterprise
Coal Mining Co. (Iowa)....
Compliance.-Presumption arises from the language of Workmen's Compen-
sation Act, providing employer shall secure compensation to his employee
in specified ways, that defendant employer has complied with duty
placed upon him and burden is on servant to establish fact which pre-
vents the application of Workmen's Compensation Law to himself-
engineer having kept dog on premises it must be assumed that dog
remained there with permission of employer-fact that cause of injury
to servant was animate rather than inanimate does not alter result that
injury was in course of employment. Barone v. Brambach Piano Co.
(N. Y.)
Compliance. Where employee was discharged from work upon one building
and a few days later was rehired on another building, there was a new
hiring, and employer, having posted notice as to the new building, was
liable only to pay compensation and not damages-actual notice of
provisions of act on part of employee is not an acceptance of them, or
agreement to be bound by them in advance of compliance with section 1,
par. 3, cl. (c.). Curran v. Wells Bros. Co. (III.)..
Computation of Award.
(SEE COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION.)
Computation of Compensation.
Computation of, etc.-Invalid under section 8, par. (3), when based upon per-
manent disabilities. Stubbs v. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.).
|