of the accident, was one arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. L. 72, 86 Atl. 458.

Zabriskie v. Erie R. R. Co., 85 N. J. L. 157, 88 Atl. 824, affirmed 86 N. J. L. 266, 92 Atl. 385.

Scott v. Payne Bros., 85 N. J. L. 446, 89 Atl. 927.

In Perlsburg v. Muller, 35 N. J. L. J. 202 and 209, it was held that if an accident happens to a workman while doing the duties of his employment, it arises out of and in the course of his employment. Since the Hulley v. Moosbrugger decision the fact that the workman was doing his duty cannot be considered as conclusive of the question.

Id. Injury by Assault.

An assault by an employer upon an employe is not an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. Blake v. Head, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) 198.

An assault by a drunken man not being in any way especially connected with or incidental to the employment of a workman, was not an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Mitchinson v. Day Bros., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 324.

If a schoolmaster was killed while endeavoring to maintain discipline in his school, his death was by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Kelley v. Trim Joint District School, Gordon's W. C.
Rep. (1913) 401.

If in time of a strike a workman is assaulted by strikers when he goes from his master's place the factory or wherever it may be—to his home, his injury does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Poulton v. Kelsall, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) 295. An employer is not charged with a duty to see that none of his employes assaults any other of them, either willfully or sportively, and is not responsible for an injury caused by such an assault.

Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N. J. L. 161, 95 Atl. 1007.

In Walther v. American Wall Paper Co., 89 N. J. L. 732, 99 Atl. 263, the death of a night watchman as the result of an assault while on duty in a mill, by an assailant whose purpose in going to the mill was to rob deceased and who did not attempt any robbery from the office of the mill or any destruction of the mill property or any other mischief or crime other than the robbery of the deceased, was held not to have arisen out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. The court said the case was indistinguishable in this respect from the Hulley v. Moosbrugger case above mentioned.

In Mountain Ice Co. v. McNeil, 103 Atl. 184, the Court of Errors and Appeals, in reversing the Supreme Court which had sought to distinguish the case from Hulley v. Moosbrugger because the employes had previously with the knowledge of company been habitually skylarking, held that knowledge of president and superintendent of a concern that employes were habitually skylarking does not charge the employer with contemplating that one will commit an atrocious assault upon the other.

See also page 15.

Id. Whether Employment Must Be Proximate Cause.

In Newcomb v. Albertson, 85 N. J. L. 435, 89 Atl. 928, it was held that for an injury to be by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, it is not essential that the employment be the proximate cause; it was said that if the employment was one of the contributing causes without which the accident which actually happened would not have happened, and if the accident was one of the contributing causes without which the injury which actually followed would not have followed, the injury was by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Death need not be proximate consequence.
Cramer v. Littell, 38 N. J. L. J. 82.

See also page 13.

Id. Workman of Independent Contractor as One of the Contributing Causes.

The fact that the accident was in part due to a workman of an independent contractor does not preclude a finding

that the injury was by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. L. 72, 86 Atl. 458.

Id. Exceeding Duties.

Where a workman does something that it is no part of his duty to do, and while so doing sustains injury, such injury is not by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Lynch, Admx., v. Newman, 37 N. J. L. J. 17.

A man employed to do a particular work in a particular way is acting outside the scope of his employment if he does the work in another way.

Plumb v. Cobden Flour Mills Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 209.

A workman, no part of whose duty it was to do anything in the way of keeping machinery in proper order, was not injured by an accident arising out of his employment where he sustained injury while attempting to keep such machinery in order.

McCabe v. Henry North & Son, Lim., Gordon's W. C.
Rep. (1913) 513.

In a case where a workman directed to do a certain work voluntarily undertook to do additional work, and while so doing sustained an accident, it was held that the accident did not arise out of the workman's employment,

Whiteman v. Clifden (Viscount), Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 126.

Where a workman employed to do one kind of work sustained an accident while helping another employe in another and obviously dangerous work, it was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the workman's employment.

Davies v. Crown Perfumery Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 484.

Where a man was employed to walk along ahead of a threshing machine and call attention of driver if the lights went out but instead of doing so attempted to fix the lights

himself and was killed, he was held not to have met death by accident arising out of and in course of employment as it was no part of his duty to fix lights.

Payne v. Curtis & Son, 9 B. W. C. C. 29.

(It was intimated that if there had been an emergency a different conclusion might have been reached.)

A girl not employed to operate a power press who after having finished her work helped another girl with press work was not allowed compensation although there were no orders forbidding it and the foreman knew of the practice, it further appearing that when the foreman came around the practice would stop.

Brinckman v. Harris, 9 B. W. C. C. 200.

See also "Acts Foreign to Employment-Added Risk," page 19.

Id. Violation of Orders.

An injury to a workman when he is violating express orders of his employer, is not by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Schelf v. Kishpaugh, 37 N. J. L. 173.

If an accident happens to an employe while he is disobeying express orders not to use a certain instrumentality in performing the duties of his employment, such accident does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Reimers v. Procter Pub. Co., 89 Atl. 931, 85 N. J. L. 441. In this case the instrumentality was an automobile and the duty of the employment was the distribution of newspapers.

See, however, Kreutz v. Neuman Hardware Co., 37 N. J. L. J. 59, where it is held that mere disobedience of an order will not take a man out of the scope of his employment. If he is engaged in doing what he was hired to do in the only manner in which it could be done, the mere fact that he had been told not to do it in that way, or that a posted notice stated that if he did it in such way he did it at his own risk, does not take the case out of the scope of his employment.

Mere disobedience of an order will not always take a workman out of the scope of his employment, but if in so

doing he is arrogating to himself duties which he was neither engaged nor entitled to perform, he is acting out of the scope of his employment.

Butt v. Provident Clothing and Supply Co., Gordon's
W. C. Rep. (1913) 119.

There are two kinds of prohibitions to be considered in these cases, prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment and prohibitions which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment. A transgression of a prohibition of the former class will result in compensation being refused while violation of a prohibition of the latter class will not prevent compensation.

Plumb v. Cobden Flour Mills Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1914) 49.

A workman who in excess of his duties and in violation of express orders not to oil certain machinery, attempts to oil such machinery, sustaining injury therefrom, is not injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Dougal v. Westbrook, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 522. Where a workman was injured while breaking a regulation of the employer, the injury was not the result of a risk incidental to the employment.

Pope v. Hill's Plymouth Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) 15.

Where a workman lost his life while violating express orders, from a new and added peril to which his own conduct exposed him, his death was not by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1912) 90.

An accident happening to a workman while violating a posted notice and doing something which he knows he was not engaged or entitled to do, does not arise out of and in the course of the workman's employment.

M'Diarmid v. Ogilvy Brothers, Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 537.