Assaults. Injuries caused by third persons

arise out of the employment. Murray v. Denholm & Co. (1911), 48 Sc. L. R. 896; 5 B. W. C. C. 496. In the lastmentioned case it was said that the act of assaulting the strikebreakers was a crime and not an accident.

A storekeeper agreed with his employers to work as a carter during a strike of carters and drivers, and the employers agreed to compensate him for any injury he might receive from the strikers. On going home to lunch he was assaulted, injured and incapacitated by the strikers. Upon making a claim for compensation it was held that although the agreement gave him a good cause of action at common law, it did not enlarge his rights under the compensation action so as to cover the time after he left off work, and that therefore the accident did not arise out of the employment. Poulton v. Kelsall (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 318.

An errand boy while at work was attacked with a hatchet by his employer who was subject to fits of melancholia and had been in an asylum. It was held that this was not an accident and it did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Blake v. Head (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 303. In the last-mentioned case, Buckley, L. J., remarked: "A felonious act done by the employer cannot by any possible straining of language be called an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment."

A recent newspaper account states that the Washington Commission denied compensation to an employé who was assaulted by his employer.

A steamship was lying in the Harbor of Pernambuco, Brazil, on September 30, 1911, while a revolution was in progress in the town. By reason of the disturbance and the difficulty in discharging the cargo the stay of the steamship was very much prolonged. A member of the crew was on the deck on watch at night, while firing was going on in the town, and he was hit by a stray bullet. It was held that the connection between the accident and the employment was too remote to come within the Act, and that the injury did

Playing practical jokes

not arise out of the employment. McShane v. Harrison, The Policy Holder, April 10, 1913, p. 296.

23. Playing practical jokes.

A driver's helper, whose duty it was to take care of the horses was tramped upon by the horses in the stable and so badly injured that he subsequently died. There were conflicting reports as to how the accident happened. One report stated that the injured employé and another "were having a friendly tussle" in the stall of the horses and were pushing each other when Craig (the injured employé) slipped and fell under the horse. The horse then stepped on him, injuring him. Upon investigation, however, by the Board, the man who had made the above statement could not be found, and it appeared from other testimony that the injured man was alone in the stall when the horse tramped upon him. The Board, in awarding compensation said: "If we were thoroughly convinced of the truthfulness of the first statement made by Frey (the witness who disappeared), we would consider it our duty to deny compensation, for the reason that if employés engaged in a common employment temporarily suspend their regular work for the purpose of engaging in "a friendly tussle" and thereby sustain injury, such injury cannot be said to be incurred in the course of employment. But we can understand how the injury might easily have occurred while the injured workman was engaged in his employment, and without any fault on his part, though it might have been occasioned by the pranks of Frederick Frey." Re Eva Isabelle Craig, Claim No. 2208, Ohio Indus. Acc. Bd., Mar. 21, 1913.

A boy, set to clean a machine at rest, was larking with another boy, and accidentally started the machine, thereby injuring himself. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment. Cole v. Evans, Son, Lescher & Webb (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 138; following Furniss v. Gartside & Co. (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 411. A domestic servant while en

Bite of animal

gaged in the performance of her duties was struck on the eye by a child's ball playfully thrown at her by a fellowservant, the child's nurse, with the result that she almost completely lost the sight of the eye. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment within the meaning of § 1 (1) of the Act of 1906. Wilson v. Laing (1909), 46 Scotch L. R. 843; 2 B. W. C. C. 118. Some workmen, as a practical joke, put the hook of their employers' crane, which they were working, through the neckcloth of a fellow workman who was at the time engaged in his work on his employers' wharf, and commenced to draw him up through the warehouse. The man held the chains with his hands as long as he could, but eventually had to let go his hold, and fell a considerable distance and was seriously injured. It was held that the injury did not arise out of the employment. Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Son (1908), 99 L. T. 101; 1 B. W. C. C. 197. Where one workman, in the spirit of horseplay had placed another in a very dangerous situation, and a third workman going to his rescue, was seriously injured, it was held that the workman who took the risk, was not injured while performing any of the duty owing to his employers and that therefore the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Mullen v. D. Y. Stewart & Co. (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 729; 1 B. W. C. C. 204. The applicant for compensation, one Shaw, had for no apparent reason pushed another workman named Dilworth against a moving rope. Dilworth involuntarily swung up one hand, in which he held a hammer, to prevent falling over the moving rope, and this hammer hit the applicant over the eye and injured him so badly that he lost the sight of the eye. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment. Shaw v. Wigan Coal & Iron Co. (1909), 3 B. W. C. C. 81.

24. Bite of animal.

A workman has been held to have suffered an accidental

Bite of animal

injury which entitled him to compensation by the bite or attack of an animal. Hapelman v. Poole (1908), 25 T. L. R. 155; 2 B. W. C. C. 48.

A workman was taking his mid-day meal in his employer's stable, when he was bitten by one of the stable cats. The bite resulted in blood poisoning and it became necessary to amputate some of the fingers. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Rowland v. Wright (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 192.

The claimant was in a canal cut attending to the duties of his position as powder foreman, when a mad dog came running through the cut and bit him on the calf of the leg. It was held that the injury occurred in the course of the employment and that the claimant was entitled to compensation. Re E. E. Bailey, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 232.

A workman was engaged in delivering beer to the customers of his employer, and the place of residence of one of the employers was located in a portion of the city which was partially submerged by the high waters then prevalent, the cellar of the premises being flooded. When the employé called at these premises he was told of the flooded conditions of the cellar and was requested to deliver the beer at the back yard, which he did, and while so doing he was bitten by a bulldog. The attending physician's report stated that the employé "reached through a hole in a gate to unhook fastening and was bitten by a bulldog which he was unable to see, as the fence was too high to look over." It was held that the injury occurred in the course of his employment and that the workman was entitled to compensation. Re William Miller, Claim No. 3483, Ohio State Lia. Bd. Awd., April 18, 1913.

A claimant was bitten in the right leg by a mad dog while returning to work from dinner and it was held that the injury did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Re Alexander Green, Op. Sol. Dep. C. & L., p. 223.

25. Sting of insect.

Foreign substance in eye

A workman in charge of a threshing machine in a field was stung by a wasp and died from the effect of the sting. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Amys v. Barton (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 117.

A lady's maid, in the course of her employment, was sewing at an open window, through which an insect flew into her face. To defend her eyes she quickly put up her hand, which accidentally struck and permanently injured her eye. It was held that the injury was not a personal injury by accident arising out of the employment. Craske v. Wigan (1909), 100 L. T. 8; 2 B. W. C. C. 35.

26. Bite of snake.

The Washington Commission granted compensation to a workman doing road work who was bitten by a rattlesnake. Rept. 1913, p. 65.

27. Foreign substance in eye.

While a dock laborer was unloading a cargo of bran, some of the bran blew into his eye. There was grit in the bran, and this, by his constantly rubbing his eye, produced an abrasion of the cornea. This resulted in the necessity of removing the eye. It was held that this was an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and that the workman was entitled to compensation. Adams v. Thompson (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 19.

While engaged in chipping the burs from a steel plate with a cold chisel a workman was injured by a piece of the steel so chipped off, striking him in the eye and destroying his sight. It was held that this was an accident within the meaning of the British Compensation Act. Neville v. Kelly Bros. & Mitchell (1907), 13 B. C. 125; 1 B. W. C. C. 432.

It appeared that the applicant for compensation had sore eyes when he went to work on April 7, 1913. A few days later he alleged he got dust in his eyes from a machine.