Interstate Commerce.-It was necessary to warrant recovery for trial judge
to find the death was caused by accident arising out of and in course
of employment and that deceased was not engaged in interstate com-
merce. Brinsko's Estate v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.). 431
Interstate Commerce.-Flagman killed by automobile while diagonally
crossing intersection of defendant's railroad track and city street to
get his lantern or flag-held engaged in interstate commerce. Walker
v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. (Ind.)
Interstate Commerce.-If railroad employee is engaged in interstate com-
merce when accidentally injured without negligence of employer,
cannot recover under the state act, though railroad company is
not liable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act-Workmen's Com-
pensation Act, Sec. 19, when interpreted in the light of the decisions
of the United States courts, in substance, that the federal Employers'
Liability Act covers all cases in which railroads may be held liable for
injuries to employees engaged in interstate commerce, must be held to
expressly exempt from its benefit railroad employees engaged in in-
terstate commerce. Walker v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co....
Interstate Commerce.-Workmen's Compensation Act does not extend to case
of workman engaged in interstate commerce, who without employer's
fault, is injured within course of employment. following cases cited.
Matney v. Bush (Kan.)
Interstate Commerce.-Board has
no jurisdiction of servant's claim for
compensation where servant employed upon a car ferry in interstate
commerce when accident occurred. Thornton v. Grand Trunk-Milwau-
kee Car Ferry Co. (Mich.)
Interstate Commerce.--Board was without jurisdiction to entertain claim
of widow of railroad's employee killed while working on interstate train.
Miller v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. Mich.)....
Interstate Commerce.-Sole remedy of widow of servant killed in service is
not under the act, unless particular work on which employee was engaged
at time of accident was part of interstate commerce in which carrier
was engaged. Lincks v. Erie R. Co. (N. J.)...
......1096
Interstate Commerce.-A ship need not be engaged in interstate commerce
or foreign commerce to make a contract of employment relative thereto
maritime, as regards jurisdiction of admiralty over claim for injury to
employee to exclusion of proceeding under Workmen's Compensation
Act. Sullivan v. Hudson Nav. Co. (N. Y.)....
Interstate Commerce.-Claim of carpenters against employer engaged in
making alterations or repairs on ship in navigable waters to fit it for
a particular cargo are maritime and so within the jurisdiction of ad-
miralty to exclusion of State Commission. Sullivan V. Hudson Nav.
Co. (N. Y.).
Intoxication.-The act presuming that injury was not caused by employee
intentionally or from intoxication is inapplicable on question whether
injury arose within employment-night watchman who went asleep
and fell through an open door not injured within line of employment.
Gifford v. T. G. Patterson, Inc., et al. (N. Y.)..
Intoxication.-Burden being on master who has rejected act to rebut the
prima facie case arising from fact of injury to miner by fall of slate;
showing that place was not reasonably safe and that his negligence con-
tributed to injury does not exonerate master-master must show that
it was not negligent or that its negligence did not cause injury, or that
injury was due to wilful misconduct or intoxication of servant, since
servant assumes no risks incident to business traceable to master's negli-
gence contributory negligence does not defeat recovery. Mitchell
Swanwood Coal Co. (Iowa)
Intoxication.-Evidence sustained finding of Board that deceased was
so intoxicated as to take him out of course of employment and
death did not resalt directly from intoxicated condition.
Hospital v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).
Invalid Award.
(SEE AWARD.)
Joinder of Actions.-Mine employee alleging that he suffered injuries in
course of employment and also from defendant's failure to furnish com-
petent medical attention, joinder of two actions was proper. Ellamar
Mining Co. of Alaska v. Possus (U. S.)...
Jurisdiction.-The state having ceded to the United States land on which
St. Mary's Falls Ship Canal is located, the Workmen's Compensation
Act is not operative there. Willis v. Oscar Daniels Co. (Mich.)...... 825
Jurisdiction.-Where injured employee could have sued employer in ad-
miralty to recover damages for injuries state compensation law has
no application. Veasey v. Peters et al. (La.)...
Latent Disease. If disease with which employee was afflicted was latent,
and accident accelerated it to the point of disability, the existence of
disease would not of itself prevent recovery. Indianapolis Abattoir Co.
VS. Coleman et al. (Ind.)...
41
Lawful Requirement.-By provisions of section 26 of the Industrial Com-
mission Act an order made by the commission to employers generally,
or to a particular employer with reference to safe employment or place
of employment is a lawful requirement, for failure to comply with which
or with any statute or municipal ordinance prescribing means or methods
required to be used to protect the lives, health, etc., of employees, the
employer under the proviso contained in section 35, article II of the Con-
stitution, and section 29 of the Workmen'c Compensation Act is liable
to employees injured by reason of such failure. American Woodenware
Mfg. Co. vs. Schorling (Ohio).......
Lawful Requirement.-"Lawful requirement" does not include a general
course of conduct or those duties and obligations of care and caution
which rest upon employers and employees and all other members of the
community, for the protection of life, health and safety. American
Woodenware Mfg. Co. vs. Schorling (Ohio)....
Legislative Power.-Legislature had power to rest plan of Workmen's Com-
pensation Act on contractual basis and to provide that every con-
tract of service made by those coming within act shall be subject to its
terms and provisions. Hagenback et al. vs. Leppert (Ind.).
Liability.
(SEE COVERAGE.)
Lifting. Sufficient to show that lifting of can of paint caused bursting of
blood vessel and death of an employee and was within the act. South-
western Surety Ins. Co. vs. Owens et la. (Tex.)......
Lifting. Where servant sustained an inguinal hernia while lifting block
of timber or falling or being struck, nothing out of ordinary happening,
injury was not accidental. Tackles V. Bryant & Detwiler Co. et
(Mich.)
Limitations.-Section 8, chapter 209, of the laws of 1915, limiting the time
to recover under the Compensation Act to one year after the occurrence
of the injury, does not apply to claims that accrued before the passage
of the 1915 Statute. State ex rel. Berwind Fuel Co. v. District Court,
St. Louis County, et al. (Minn.)
Limitations.-Statute providing for petition of writ of review within thirty
days must be regarded as statute of limitations. North Pacific S. S.
Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.).
Limitations.--One injured January 10, 1916, and filed claim January 10, 1917,
filed same within one year under Laws 1910, c. 347, providing that day
from which any specified period of time is reckoned shall be excluded.
Hudspith v. Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co.-In re Etna Life Ins. Co.
(N. Y.)
Limitations.-Filling out and filing blank presenting employee's request for
to
disability rating
Industrial Commission not
permanent
sufficient
written application for compensation. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New
York et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California
et al. (Cal.)..
Limitations. Where committee of arbiters denied compensation on ground
that claim was not filled within six months and claimant did not within
seven days file notice of appeal to full board, he was not entitled to
appeal except if, for good cause shown, time should be extended under
act.
Kalucki v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mich.)..
Limitations.-Claim filed within six months after death by attorney for de-
fendants setting out the place, cause, etc., complied with the act.
re Pagnoni. In re Contractors' Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.).
Limitations.-Where sister of deceased employee effected agreement in
writing for compensation with employers which was filed in court and
approved by justice, petition of decedent's father for compensation for
death, filed more than two years after such death barred by section 18
prescribing two year period limitations, whether regarded as indepen-
dent proceeding or as amendment to written agreement between sister
and employers. Giannotti v. Giusti Bros. (R. I.)..
Limitations.-Widow's proceedings wherein continued disability was found
was not barred; the ability of the young workmen to perform the labor
for which he is employed not being the sole measure of disability, so
that the fact that he went back to work did not necessarily contradict
finding of continuous disability. Western Indemnity Co. v. Industrial
Accident Commission of State of California (Cal.).
Limitations.-The time begins to run when actual accident happens regard-
less of when the extent of injuries is ascertained. Dane v. Michigan
United Traction Co. (Mich.)....
Limitations.-Where employee sued under Federal Act and suffered nonsuit,
he could not thereafter receive compensation; no claim having been
filed within the required six months. Schild V. Pere Marquette R.
Co. (Mich.)
...1003
Loss of Time.-Compensation for loss of eye does not depend upon loss of
time, but is fixed at 50 per cent of average weekly wage during 100
weeks. Joliet Motor Co. vs. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.)..
Maritime Jurisdiction.-Claim of carpenters against employer engaged in
making alterations or repairs on ship in navigable waters to fit it for
a particular cargo are maritime and so within the jurisdiction of ad-
miralty to exclusion of State Commission. Sullivan v. Hudson Nav.
Co. (N. Y.)...
Maritime Jurisdiction.-A ship need not be engaged in interstate commerce
or foreign commerce to make a contract of employment relative thereto
maritime, as regards jurisdiction of admiralty over claim for injury to
employee to exclusion of proceeeding under Workmen's Compensation
Act. Sullivan v. Hudson Nav. Co. (N. Y.)....
Medical and Hospital Services and Fees.
Medical and Hospital Services and Fees.-That servant did not pay hospital
to which he was taken for first two weeks, for wnich time he was en-
titled to treatment under Workmen's Compensation Act, but paid for time
thereafter, is not evidence that he elected to proceed for compensation
under act, where he did not refuse to pay for services. Wahlberg v.
Bowen et (Mass.)
Medical and Hospital Services and Fees.-Where employee's injuries were
aggravated by insufficient medical attention, employee's right to recover
for such aggravation did not fall within the act, not being injury "aris-
ing out of employment." Ellamar Mining Co. of Alaska v. Possus (U. S.). 723
Medical and Hospital Sevices and Fees.-Employee's proceeding for compen-
sation issues upon a control between insurer and hospital and doctors, to
which employee was not a party, had no place. Hull v. United States
Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, Md. et al. (Neb.).
Medical and Hospital Services and Fees.-Evidence supported conclusion of
board that under circumstances the employer did not waive anything by
paying hospital expenses of servant and by paying him sum of money.
Nagy v. Solvay Process Co. (Mich.).
Medical and Hospital Services, etc.-Board cannot make allowance for medical
and hospital services performed more than three weeks after accident
nor can it award amounts so paid as damages. McMullen v. Gavette
Const. Co. et al. (Mich.)
Medical and Hospital Services, etc.-If Assurance Corporation had made ar-
rangements with hospital for medical attendance to injured employee the
act as amended requiring the association to furnish reasonable medical and
hospital service would have been complied with in that respect-evi-
dence that notices had been posted on premises that employee if in-
jured could be treated at city's relief hospital supported finding by in-
ference that insurance company had arranged with such hospital for such
treatment thus complying with the act. In re Ripley (Mass.)..
Medical and Hospital Services, etc.-Commission has jurisdiction to make
award to injured employee for medical services rendered to him within
sixty days after injury-in absence of request by employee to employer
that he furnish medical services there can be no award therefor, as statute
expressly makes such request prerequisite to validity of claim for such
services. Goldflam v. Kazemier & Uhl, Inc.-In re United States Casualty
Co. (N. Y.)
Medical and Hospital Service and Fees. If Assurance Corporation had made
arrangements with hospital for medical attendance to injured employee,
the act as amended requiring the association to furnish reasonable
medical and hospital service would have been complied with in that
respect-evidence that notices had been posted on premises that employee,
if injured, could be treated at city's relief hospital supported finding by
inference that insurance company had arranged with such hospital for
such treatment, thus complying with the act. In re Ripley (Mass.).... 622
Medical and Hospital Services, etc.-Commission's rule requiring an employer
to pay for medical services for two weeks after an employee's disability
occurs, is inconsistent with Rev. St. c. 50, Sec. 10, requring payment for
medical services rendered during the first two weeks after the injury,
where the disability did not immediately develop. In re McKen-
na (Me.)
Medical and Hospital Services, etc. Servant could not recover for medical
aid where insurer was not notified of injury and given an opportunity
to furnish its own physician-any one who pays for medical services
for servant may recover from insurer. American Indemnity Co.
Nelson et al. (Tex.)..
Medical Testimony. That employee's injury resulted in nephritis, which
lowered his power to resist an attack of tuberculosis sustained Com-
mission's finding that injury accelerated his desease. Retmier et al.
Method of Computation.
(SEE COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION.)
Minors. Plaintiff, though he had not been in defendant's employ for thirty
days at time of accident had not given notice that he elected not to be
subject to provisions of the act-Section 3494-7 subd. 2, declares that
term "employee" shall include every person in service of another under
any contract of hire including minors who are legally permitted to
work-minor was working under child labor permit and was subject to
provisions of act-though plaintiff was required to run elevator, a pro-
hibited employment, he was nevertheless subject to the act, which pro-
vides for treble the amount otherwise recoverable. Lutz vs Wilmanns
Bros. Co. (Wis.)
Minors. By the exertion of such power, the Legislature has, by chapter 15P.
Code 1916, known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, substituted a mode
of compensation for such deprivation or impairment different from and
in lieu of the common-law right of redress therefor-not depended upon
knowledge by parent of employment or his consent or want of consent
thereto statute shows minors may be lawfully employed in any industry
or occupation except when prohibited and when employer has in manner
therein given required notice and employee though infant, thereafter
continues in employment, the continuation and notice combined operate a
waiver of common-law right of action for redress. Adkins v. Hope
Engineering & Supply Co. (W. Va.).......
Minors. Under the act providing for election between remedies when em-
ployee is injured or killed by negligence of another not in same employ
and for subrogation if compensation is paid a widow with dependent
child may for herself and child make an election-statute as amended
was merely clarified and not substantially altered, by providing for
election by minors or their parents or guardians as the commission
determines. Hanke v. New York Consol. R. Co. (N. Y.).....
Minors.-Workmen's Compensation Act is not violative of constitutional
provision that every law shall embrace one subject, which shall be ex-
press in the title in that it seeks to bind a minor employee without
election on his part-provision that in case of minor employee notice
that provisions of the section are not intended to apply to contract of
employment shall be given by or to parent or guardian of minor was
clearly within the legislative authority-if parent or guardian fail to
properly perform duty required minor may apply to court for redress-
not within power of minor employee to disaffirm contract of employ-
ment and obligations springing therefrom. Young v. Sterling Leather
Works (N. J.)..
Minors. Though defendant master had elected to come under the act it
was not applicable to plaintiff and he might, despite its provisions, re-
Cover in action at law for injuries sustained. Roszek v. Bauerle &
Stark Co. (III.).....
Minors. Where minor employed in bakery without permit required by law
as condition to employment of minors he was not an "employee" with-
in the act. Messmer v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..
Municipal Corporations.-A city, hiring horses, cart and driver from another
to carry material from one place to another as its servants might
direct, the driver being left to deal with the horses in his own way, is not
liable for such servant's death under S. 1913, c. 807, making the Work-
men's Compensation Act applicable to employees in municipalities. In re
Clancy (Mass.)
Municipal Corporations.-Although claimant was employed by Public Service
Commission, where he was paid by the city, the city was engaged in
hazardous employment of subway construction, within the meaning of
the act and is liable to claimant for injuries. Sexton vs. Public Service
Commission of City of New York (N. Y.).
Municipal Corporations.-Claimant employed by village as street commissioner
and policeman, who looked after streets, lights, water, electric poles,
etc., was going to depot to get some lead to use on water pipes when
he saw a truckman going down and rode on his sleigh part of the
distance to depot. the truckman was making a trip on other business
and was to stop on his return trip to get the lead; claimant was injured
in getting off sleigh a short distance from station, village cannot with
respect to accident be deemed to have been operating a vehicle, nor can
claimant, despite his services with respect to water and electrical appar-
atus, be allowed an award on theory that accident occurred while en-
gaged in hazardous employment. Spinks v. Village of Marcellus et al.
(N. Y.)
Municipal Corporations.-Indigent applicant employed as teamster in mu-
nicipal woodyard, was when proceeding to remove household goods of
indigent family, as directed by superintendent, was within scope of his
employment, so that city would be liable. City of Oakland v. Industrial
Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.)....
Muncipal Corporations.-Townships if engaged in any hazardous occupation
enumerated in paragraph b of section 3, are conclusively presumed to
have elected to provide and pay compensation under the act unless they
have elected to the contrary. McLaughlin, Commissioner of High-
ways v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..
Municipal Corporation.-Assisting in procuring men and materials for work
is fairly incidental to employment of foreman of road construction for
a town, entitling him to award for injury received while so assisting;
the occupation of road construction carried on by the town being haz-
ardous and the town represented by superintendent of highways being
an employer and the foreman being engaged in a hazardous occupa-
tion being an employee. Lanagan V. Town of Saugerties-In re
Travelers' Ins. Co. (N. Y.)...
Municipal Corporations.-While constructing a sewer,
an enterprise involving any gain or profit and
the Compensation Act. Redfern v. Eby et al.
city is not engaged in
does not come within
(Kan.)...
Negligence. Whether negligence of employer presumed in such case from
injury under Section 2477m, par. 4, had been overcome and whether de-
fendant was negligent in failure to take down dangerous portions of roof
were jury questions. Mitchell vs. Philips Mining Co. (Iowa).
Negligence. As to presumption of negligence where employer has elected to
reject term of act, presumption of negligence is rebuttable and it is for
jury to say whether presumption has been overcome. Mitchell VS.
Phillips Mining Co. (Iowa)..
Negligence.-Master who rejects Workmen's Compensation Law is presumed
negligent and burden is on him. Mitchell vs. Des Moines Coal Co. (Iowa). 200
Negligence.-Section 26 of the act does not operate to deny an employer,
engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, his common-law
defenses in action brought by one of its employees for injury received
while performing work pertaining distinctly to intrastate commerce, etc.
Barnett vs. Coal & Coke Ry. Co. (W. Va.).....
Negligence. As contributory negligence is no defense and does not affect
question of what was within scope of employment, accident to deceased
cannot be declared without the scope of his employment, on theory that
such contributory negligence could not have been foreseen. Alexander
v. Industrial Board et al. (II.)..
Negligence.-Burden being on master who has rejected act to rebut the
prima facie case arising from fact of injury to miner by falling of slate,
showing that place was not reasonably safe and that his negligence
contributed to injury does not exonerate master-master must show that
it was not negligent or that its negligence did not cause injury, or that
injury was due to wilful misconduct or intoxication of servant, since
servant assumes no risks incident to business traceable to master's
negligence-contributory negligence does not defeat recovery. Mitchell v.
Swanwood Coal Co. (Iowa).
Negilgence.-Administratrix of servant to recover for death at common law
must show gross negligence and wilful disregard of life, limb or bodily
safety on part of elective officer of corporation. Brown v. Lemon Cove
Ditch Co. (Cal.)..
Negligence.-Under Workmen's Compensation Act compensation may be
awarded although employer's negligence did not proximately cause in-
jury. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Limited V. Evans
et al. (Tex.)..
|