Volunteers; acting without scope of authority capacity. (E. L.) Hayes v. Colchester Mills, 37 Atl. Rep. 269; 69 Vt. 1. A servant, inexperienced and under age, was injured while at work on the double-board of a derrick. The foreman saw him go up the derrick to work on the double-board, and knew his inexperience, but did not instruct or warn him of danger, but permitted him to work there. It was held that he was not a volunteer, but must be regarded as having been put to work by the foreman. (E. L.) Producers' Oil Co. v. Barnes, 120 S. W. Rep. 1023; 000 Tex. Civ. App. 000. A boy aged nineteen was employed as one of a crew to shackle and kill hogs. He did not understand English and had been instructed by his foreman by means of motions and signs. During the absence of other members of the crew the applicant shackled a hog and attempted to kill it. In the process he cut his right hand. Ordinarily, the killing was done by one employé, known as the butcher, while the separating and shackling was done by two or three other employés, including the applicant. It was held under the wording of the Wisconsin Workmen's Compensation Act, which allows compensation for injuries occurring while a workman is performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment, that the applicant was entitled to compensation. Mike Magda v. Plonkington Packing Co., Wis. Indus. Acc. Bd., April 23, 1913. The voluntary offer of a willing servant to make himself useful in a matter not covered by any express command, does not, as a matter of law, put him outside the limits of his employment, where the proffered service is accepted by his superior, though not by an approval expressed in words. (E. L.) Miner v. Franklin County Telephone Co., 75 Atl. R. 653; 83 Vt. 311. Where an employé is not engaged for any particular work but is employed to do what may be required of him, his acts under the direction of a vice principal are within the scope of his employment. (E. L.) Mericle v. Acme Cement Plaster Co., 136 N. W. Rep. 916; 155 Iowa, 692. Where the agent of the defendant's saw mill company, on the even Volunteers; acting without scope of authority ing before plaintiff's injury, directed him to "get in and do anything that he saw to be done," it was held that such a direction was sufficient to include the coupling of cars. (E. L.) Stark v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 87 Pac. Rep. 339; 44 Wash. 309. Where a master divided his business into departments and required employés idle in their own departments to help in some other department, and the foreman of a department received an employé of another department and accepted his services and directed him, it was held that the employé was not a volunteer, but was engaged in the performance of his duties. (E. L.) Hugo, Schmeltzer & Co. v. Paiz, 128 S. W. Rep. 912; 000 Tex. Civ. App. 000. A section hand who, while being transported to his place of employment, was injured in attempting to replace a trolley which had slipped from the wire, was held to be not a mere volunteer, where it appeared that the work had been done by the section men on former occasions with the knowledge and consent of the officers of the company. (E. L.) Toledo, B. G. & F. Ry. Co., v. Pfisterer, 26 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 669. A street railroad company cannot avoid liability for death of a conductor caused at night by coming in contact with a broken trolley wire lying on the ground, on the theory that he was a mere volunteer in leaving his car to investigate the break. (E. L.) Martin v. North Jersey Street Ry. Co. 80 Atl. R. 477; 000 N. J. Law 000. A woman, part of whose work was to clean certain machinery in a factory, finding the guard removed from another part of the machinery which it was not her duty to touch, proceeded to clean it. While she was cleaning it the machinery started, and she was injured. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment and compensation was awarded. Greer v. Lindsay Thompson (1912), 46 Ir. L. T. .89; 5 B. W. C. C. 586. A "barrow-man" changed places with a "tipper" in the work of unloading a ship and met with an accident after Volunteers; acting without scope of authority making such change. It was the practice of the men to exchange work and the practice was known to and not forbidden by the employer. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment and compensation was awarded. Henneberry v. Doyle (1911), 46 Ir. L. T. 70; 5 B. W. C. C. 580. Where an employé assigned to certain duties has been in the habit of changing places with another employé, and this custom is known to the employers, and such employé was injured while doing the work of the other employé, he was not a mere volunteer and the employer is responsible for injuries which he receives under such circumstances. (E. L.) Belton Gil Co. v. Duncan, 127 S. W. Rep. 884; Tex. Civ. App. Two boys employed in threshing, exchanged positions with the knowledge of the foreman in charge, and one of them was injured. It was held that such injury occurred during the course of the boy's employment. Cambrook v. George (1903), 5 W. C. C. 26. Where an employé of a lumber company, operating a railroad from its mill to a railroad station, was employed as engineer of its train, with power to hire and discharge the train crew and had full charge of the train, it was held that he did not act outside the scope of his employment, while acting as switchman, on his becoming dissatisfied with the manner in which the regular switchman did his work. (E. L.) Blackburn v. Cherokee Lumber Co., 67 S. E. Rep. 915; 152 N. C. 361. Where a servant called on to do various kinds of work in an electric light and power plant, went with the superintendent of the plant to another room to remedy a defect in the lines therein, and there was no objection to his presence in the room or to any activity on his part, it was held that it was not outside of the scope of his employment while in the room and at work attempting to remedy the defect. (E. L.) Short v. Fort Dodge Light & Power Co., 128 N. W. Rep. 366; 149 Iowa, 303. An operator of a freight elevator is not without the scope of his employment in going to the fifth floor of the building to see what has stopped his elevator, although generally he had no Volunteers; acting without scope of authority duties above the third floor. (E. L.) Stone v. Boscawen Mills, 52 Atl. Rep. 119; 71 N. H. 288. In the last-mentioned case it was further held that the freight operator was not without the scope of his employment in removing a slight obstruction which had stopped the progress of the elevator, such removal not being such as to involve any hazard under ordinary conditions, although the instructions of the operator were to report to the mechanic in charge when his elevator would not run or needed fixing. If an elevator operator was authorized to request plaintiff, a passenger, to go upon the roof of the car in order to replace a screen to prevent objects from falling upon himself and passengers, plaintiff was not a trespasser while doing so, but was a servant of the owner for the time being. (E. L.) Baynes v. Billings, 73 Atl. 625; 30 R. I. 53. If a pumper employed by a railroad company, whose duties required him to ride between pumping stations, believed, and was justified in believing that he had a right to ride in the engine with the engineer's and the conductor's permission, it was held that he was in the line of his duties, although he voluntarily or by request, performed the duties of fireman for the engineer. (E. L.) Kunza v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 123 N. W. Rep. 403; 140 Wisc. 440. Where a hostler was directed by his foreman to place certain engines on a particular switch, it was held to be within the course of his duty to throw the switch so as to permit the engines to be run thereon. (E. L.) Gray v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 121 N. W. Rep. 142; 139 Wisc. 419. A delivery clerk, whose duty it was to see that bales of cotton were delivered to the proper person, became suspicious that certain bales of cotton were being stolen, as they had been before, and threw down bales which were piled on each other, as he thought, for the purpose of creating a "blind", and in so doing he injured a longshoreman, who was working among the cotton bales. It was held that the delivery clerk was within the scope of his employment, even Volunteers; acting without scope of authority though a watchman was employed to prevent thieves from stealing the cotton, and for the injuries thereby caused the employer was responsible. (E. L.) Courtney v. Baker, 70 N. Y. 1. Where an agent having sole charge of the preparation and exhibition of cumbersome and complicated machinery calls to his assistance one who in good faith enters upon such work, the person so employed is not a volunteer or trespasser, but for the time being assumes the relation of master and servant. (E. L.) Maxson v., J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 116 N. W. Rep. 281; 81 Nebr. 546. Where blasting could not be safely done in a mine while mining was in progress, and it was the custom, when a miner left before quitting time, for his mate to fire off his blast, it was held that the plaintiff was not a volunteer in firing the blast of his fellow miner, according to such custom. (E. L.) McHenry Coal Co. v. Render, 104 S. W. Rep. 996; 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1274. A minor who is directed to assist the operator of a trip hammer is not a mere volunteer in assisting the operator to remove a die. (E. L.) B. F. Avery & Sons v. Cottrill's Guardian, 107 S. W. Rep. 332; 32 Ky. Law Rep. 914. A person employed by a purchaser of motors to inspect them before acceptance, who assisted the seller's employé in making a test, was not a mere volunteer. (E. L.) Johnson v. E. C. Clark Motor Co., 139 N. W. Rep. 30; 173 Mich. 277. A freight conductor, on reaching, late at night, a station situated one mile from a trestle, was informed by the road superintendent that, owing to a heavy rain, it was likely that two culverts would be in a dangerous condition, one of which was half-way between the station and the trestle, and the other beyond the trestle, but nothing was said about the trestle. The conductor detached the engine and with the engineer, fireman, one brakeman and the road superintendent, started to examine the culverts. The first was found to be all right, when they proceeded to the second, ་ |