of her employment because she had departed from such employment. Chinnick v. Potter & Clark, Ltd., 9 B. W. C. C. 320. That a workman chose the most dangerous of three ways to get to his work after having missed the train furnished by his employers does not prevent an accident while so doing from being one arising out of his employment. Fox v. Rees & Kirby, 9 B. W. C. C. 459. For an accident to a seaman while absent from his vessel to arise out of the employment the absence must be in pursuance of a duty owed to the employer, or if it occurs when the seaman has been ashore on his own business and is returning to the boat, he must have so nearly approached the means of access to the ship as to make it reasonable to hold that he had returned to the sphere of his employment. McLean v. MacBrayne, Ltd., 9 B. W. C. C. 687. Skylarking. An injury from skylarking (or fooling or horse-play or practical joking as it is variously called) whether participated in by the injured or not, does not arise out of the employment. Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N. J. L. 161, 95 Atl. 1007. See also pages 27 and 36. Id. Doing What Employed to Do. An accident which happens to a workman when he is doing something he was employed to do arises out of his employ ment. Houghton Admx. v. W. G. Root Const. Co., N. J. L. J. See also Gallant v. Ship "Gabir" (Owners), Gordon's It is part of a sailor's duty while on shipboard to wash his own clothes, and an accident to him while so doing arises out of the employment. Cokolon v. S. S. Kentra, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) In a case where there was no definition of an employe's duties, which were in general to clean a certain section of machinery, and the employe was cleaning a certain part thereof when the machine started and injured the employe, there was an injury by accident arising out of as well as in the course of the employment. Greer v. Lindsay Thompson, Lim., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) 272. An injury to a domestic servant which occurred while getting up pursuant to direction of her mistress to build a fire, and which was caused by the dropping of a piece of mortar from the wall into the servant's eye, was an injury by accident. Alderidge v. Merry, Gordon's W. C. Rep., (1913) 97. The drowning of a workman while returning across a river from his work in his employer's boat, which under his contract of hiring it was agreed he should do, was a death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employ ment.. Mole v. Wadworth, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 160. In Partridge v. Wm. Whiteley, Ltd., 8 B. W. C. C. 53, a motor-van driver whose clutch was in a defective condition so speed could not be changed without danger to the gear took up boards from the bottom of the van so he could operate gearing with his foot. It was said that what was done was done in order to get over a difficulty which he encountered in the work he was employed to do, viz., the driving of the van, and that what he did was required to be done, and was honestly done in furtherance of the object he was instructed to effect, and that he was not acting outside of his employment. In New Jersey the fact that a workman was doing what he was employed to do is not conclusive of the question of whether the accident arose out of the employment for the Court of Errors and Appeals has held that the accidents in Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N. J. L. 161, 95 Atl. 1007 and Walther v. American Wall Paper Co., 89 N. J. L. 732, 99 Atl. 263, did not arise out of the employment while in both of these cases the injured was at the time doing what he was employed to do. Id. Acts Specifically Connected with Employment. If an accident to a workman results from his doing something specifically connected with his employment it arises out of the employment. Steers v. Dunnewald, 89 Atl. 1007, 85 N. J. L. 449, 88 If an accident is brought on by the work it arises out of the employment. Voorhees v. Smith Schoonmaker, 86 N. J. L. 500, 92 Id. Place of Accident. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that an accident to a workman happened at a place he had to cross to reach his work that such accident arose out of his employment. Steers v. Dunnewald, 85 N. J. L. 449, 89 Atl. 1007, 88 To arise out of employment means that the accident must have arisen because of the nature of the employment in which the injured person was at the time. It cannot be said that because a man is employed at a particular place any accident which occurs to him in that place because of the nature of its surroundings arises out of the employment. Simpson v. Sinclair, 9 B. W. C. C. 658. The reversal of the decision in House of Lords was not on the grounds that above principle was not true but because in this case the accident was result of incidental risk. See [1917] A. C. 127; Gordon's or [1917] W. C. & I. Rep. 164. See also under "Arising out of and in the course of employment." Arising in the Course of Employment. In General. An accident arises in the course of employment if the employe 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. Bryant v. Fissell, 85 N. J. L. 72, 86 Atl. 458. Zabriskie v. Erie R. R., 85 N. J. L. 157, 88 Atl. 824, Houghton, Adm. v. W. G. Root Const. Co., N. J. L. J. In Evans . Holloway, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1914) 77, it was held that giving a lift to a fellow employe on the way home, in pursuance of a custom known to the employer, did not put an end to the course of a driver's employment. In Horsfall v. Steamship "Jura" (Owners), Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 183, the ordering of a workman off duty was held to have taken him out of the course of his employment. The discharge of an employe ended the course of the employment. Greenberg v. Atwood, 38 N. J. L. J. 54. Id. Not Limited to Time Actually at Work. The course of a workman's employment is not limited to the time he is actually engaged at his machine; it includes time to reach his machine and time to get away from his master's premises. The preparation reasonably necessary for beginning work after the employer's premises are reached and for leaving when the work is over is part of the employment, and an accident to an employe under any of the circumstances indicated arises in the course of the employment. Terlecki v. Strauss, 85 N. J. L. 454, 89 Atl. 1023, affirmed 86 N. J. L. 708, 82 Atl. 1087. In this case an accident to a girl combing wool out of her hair after quitting work and before leaving factory was held to have arisen in the course of her employment. In one case it was held no breach of the course of a workman's employment for him to get off of his wagon on a hot day and go into a saloon for a glass of beer, if he returned at once to his wagon, and that an accident to a workman when so returning to his wagon arose in the course of his employment. Martin v. John Lovibond, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 78. Id. Place of Accident. When a workman is actually going to his work upon a road provided by his employer, and is actually within the premises of the employer, he is within the scope and sphere of his employment and an accident to him at such a place arises in the course of the employment. Michael v. Young's Parrafine Light. etc., Co., 8 B. W. The course of a workman's employment continues while he is going from work until he has left the premises of the employer (and for this purpose premises which do not belong to the employer but which the workman would have no right to enter except for his employment are considered the employer's premises). Longhurst v. John Stewart, 9 B. W. C. C. 605, aff'd [1917] A. C. 249; Gordon's W. C. Rep. or [1917] W. C. & I. Rep. 305. An accident to a seaman away from the vessel on his own purposes does not arise in the course of his employment. Charles R. Davidson & Co. v. McRobb, A. C. 1918–304. If an accident happens to a workman on his way to work, at a place he had to cross to reach his work, it arises in the course of his employment. Dunnewald v. Steers, 85 N. J. L. 449, 89 Atl. 1007, affirmed 89 N. J. L. 601, 99 Atl. 345. Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment. Result of Incidental Risk. An accident which was the result of a risk which might have been contemplated by a reasonable person as incidental to the employment, and which occurred while a workman was doing what he might reasonably do at the time and place |