Injury before work begins or after it ceases ses, he slipped and fell and was fatally injured. The use of this route was neither sanctioned nor expressly prohibited by the owners of the mine, and involved, as the deceased must have known, considerable danger. On these facts it was held that there was evidence to support the arbitrators' ruling that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Hendry v. The United Collieries (1910), 47 Scotch L. R. 635; 3 B. W. C. C. 567. Where an engine driver arrived on the premises, where he was to start work, an hour and a quarter before it was necessary for him to be there, and in crossing some tracks, in returning from a place where he had gone for his own purposes, was hit by a train and killed, it was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment. Benson v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co. (1903), 89 L. T. 715; 6 W. C. C. 20. A miner was injured on his way to work. He was on his employers' land, but had not reached the point at which his duties commenced, and the accident happened twenty minutes before the hour at which work started. The arbitrator decided that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, and it was held by the Court of Session of Scotland that there was evidence on which the arbitrator was justified in so deciding. Anderson v. Fife Coal Co. (1909), 47 Scotch L. R. 5; 3 B. W. C. C. 539. Decedent was assigned to the nightshift which commenced work at about 4 P. M. At the time of his death he was not on duty. He went to the works to talk with another employé about going home on the following Sunday. As he was in the act of leaving the works a box of gravel was raised for the purpose of being emptied by the man to whom decedent had been talking. Instead of passing on and allowing the man on duty to empty the box, claimant took hold of it for that purpose, and in doing so fell overboard and was drowned. It was held that the death of the decedent did not occur in Injury before work begins or after it ceases the course of his employment and compensation was denied to his dependents. Re H. G. Simpson, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 251. The claim in the above entitled matter was refused by the Attorney General who affirmed the decision reached by the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor. Re H. G. Simpson, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 253. A workman was employed to attend to spinning-mules in a cotton mill. Before commencing work it was necessary for him, on account of the wet floor, to remove his socks. In doing so he strained the tendon of his middle finger, and became incapacitated thereby. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Peel v. Lawrence & Sons (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 274. A brakeman had a license to go to a caboose in the freight yards to get his clothes. He boarded a caboose attached to a moving train to search for his clothing and was injured while jumping off, by being caught in a defective switch stand. It was held that he was not acting within the scope of his employment or his license, and the company was not liable for his injuries. (E. L.) Olson v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 78 N. W. Rep. 975; 76 Minn. 149. An engineer was killed by an outgoing engine while he was on his way to take charge of his own engine. He was neither authorized, directed nor required, in the discharge of his duties, to walk on the track, as he was doing when injured. It was held that he was at most a mere licensee and no duty was imposed on the defendant, except the general duty to do no intentional injury. (E. L.) Buckley v. New York Central & H. R. Co., 126 Supp. 480. A club servant left the club for his own purposes, returning about midnight by climbing through a window, and while so doing he was injured. It was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Watson v. Sherwood (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 462. Employé killed by burning of employer's residence 5. Working after regular hours of employment. A laborer actually at work for his employer, although outside of working hours, is still engaged in his employment so far as the duty of his master is concerned to answer for injuries suffered by the employé. (E. L.) Broderick v. Detroit Union R. Sta. & Depot Co., 56 Mich. 261; 22 N. W. Rep. 802. Where a servant sustained a personal injury by the giving way of a floor of a building the fact that he was working after hours was held to be immaterial in determining the liability for the injury. (E. L.) Gage v. S. Mills Ely Co., 132 Supp. 953. A servant who worked during the dinner hour, does not, for that reason alone, become a volunteer so as to relieve the master of liability for an injury to him resulting from a defect in the premises. (E. L.) MitchellTranter Co. v. Ehmett, 65 S. W. Rep. 835; 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1788; 55 L. R. A. 710. An employé who was engaged in a carpet mill as scourer, voluntarily undertook, after hours, to help run a line of hotwater pipe over a vat of boiling caustic soda. While standing on a plank placed over the vat, the pipe slipped out of his hands, and he was knocked into the vat and killed. It was held that the master was not liable. (E. L.) Durst v. Bromley Bros. Carpet Co., 57 Atl. Rep. 986; 208 Pa. St. 573. 6. Employé killed by burning of employer's premises. A servant residing in her mistress's house was suffocated in her bedroom through a fire which broke out in the house. She shared the room with a lame cook, and she and the cook were suffocated. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Chitty v. Nelson (1908), 2 B. W. C. C. 496. An employé who lost his life in a burning factory building in which he was employed, was held to have been killed in the course of employment and the dependents entitled to compensation. Re Harriet H. Horn, Claim No. 1013, Ohio Indus. Acc. Bd., Dec. 23, 1912. Returning to employer's premises to secure pay 7. Entering employer's premises to apply for work. A laborer passing into a building under construction to apply for work, in response to information that men were needed, was held not to be an employé as effecting liability of the contractors for his injury. (E. L.) Dickerson v. Bornstein, 137 S. W. Rep. 773, 144 Ky. 19. 8. Returning to employer's premises to secure pay. A workman will be held to be acting in the course of his employment, when, having ceased actual work, he returns to the premises to obtain his pay. Riley v. W. Holland & Sons (1911), 1 K. B. 1029; 4 B. W. C. C. 155. Even though on such ceasing of actual work the relation of master and servant is terminated. Riley v. W. Holland & Sons (1911), supra; Molloy v. South Wales Anthracite Colliery Co. (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 65. A workman, engaged as a laborer on the public roads, was required to go for his pay to the tramway depot, situated in a public road some distance away. The workman was paid for the time occupied in going to and going from the pay place. When returning to his work, after receiving his wages, he mounted a tram car, but finding that it did not travel to the place where his work was situated, he got off and was struck by a passing cart and injured. It was held by the Court of Appeal in England that the injury was one arising out of and in the course of the man's employment. Nelson v. Belfast Corporation (1908), 42 Irish L. T. 223; 1 B. W. C. C. 158. A mill-hand, whose employment had ended, attended at the employer's mill to receive her wages a few days later, in accordance with the usage of the trade. She met with an accident while leaving. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Riley v. W. Holland & Sons (1911), 104 L. T. 371; 4 B. W. C. C. 155. An employé after completing his day's work and while still on his employer's premises was injured while going from Returning to employer's premises to secure pay the locality where he was doing his work to the office of the paymaster to obtain his pay, the traversing of that portion of the premises on which the injury occurred not being forbidden by the rules or directions of the employer, and the injury not being purposely self-inflicted, it was held that the injury was sustained in the course of the employment and the injured employé was entitled to compensation. Re R. B. Phillips, Claim No. 3514, Ohio Indus. Acc. Bd., May 5, 1913. A miner who left off work at 5 A. M. on Saturday morning, but would have resumed work on the Sunday night following, went to the works at 12:30 mid-day on Saturday, to receive his wages, and while proceeding on his employers' premises with this purpose he was injured by a railway engine, which ran through the employers' premises. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Lowry v. Sheffield Coal Co. (1907), 24 T. L. R. 142; 1 B. W. C. C. 1. A collier received his pay-note on Saturday. Being dissatisfied with the amount, he spoke to the manager, who referred him to the under-manager. The latter could not be seen until Monday. The collier came on Monday at midday, not intending to resume work unless the dispute was settled in his favor, and saw the under-manager, who did not give in. The collier then proceeded to leave, but was knocked down by a coal wagon and killed. It was held that the accident did not arise out of, nor in the course of the employment. Phillips v. Williams (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 143. A farm laborer had at the end of his day's work to go about two miles to his employer's farm to receive his pay and instructions for the next day's work. A fellow-workman happened to be going the same way with a cart, and invited him to ride therein. The workman did so, and was thrown out and injured by the horse suddenly starting. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Parker v. Pont (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 45. |