 | California. Supreme Court - 1917 - 980 str.
...which the workman would be equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood. It must be incidentsl to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of master and servant.... | |
 | 1917 - 982 str.
...the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood; it must be incident to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of master and servant.... | |
 | William Otis Badger - 1918 - 1272 str.
...the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work, and not common to the neighborhood....master and servant. It need not have been foreseen or expecftd, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment,... | |
 | New York (State). Dept. of Labor - 1918 - 638 str.
...the workmen would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work, and not common to the neighborhood....of the relation of master and servant. It need not to have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in the... | |
 | California. District Courts of Appeal - 1918 - 942 str.
...497, [LRA 1916 A, 306, 102 NE 697] ; Bryant v. Fissell, 84 NJL 72, [86 Atl. 458].) "It [the accident] need not have been foreseen or expected, but after...in a risk connected with the employment and to have followed from that source as a rational consequence." (Kimbol v. Industrial Accident Commission, 173... | |
 | Arthur B. Honnold - 1918 - 1008 str.
...which he would have been equally exposed apart from the employment.' 8 The causative danger must be peculiar to the work, and not common to the neighborhood....character of the business, and not independent of tht relation of master and servant. 70 For example, an injury from a « т То arise out of the employment... | |
 | Montana. Supreme Court - 1918 - 770 str.
...distinction between an accident and a fortuitous event." (Zappala v. Industrial Ins. Commission, supra.) "It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence." (In re McNicol, 215 Mass. 497, LRA 1916A, 307,... | |
 | William Otis Badger - 1918 - 1030 str.
...that the causative danger was peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood, and that it was incidental to the character of the business and not...independent of the relation of master and servant, and, while it need not have been foreseen or expected, it must, after the event, appear to have had... | |
 | 1918 - 118 str.
...the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood; it must be incident to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of master and servant.... | |
 | 1919 - 700 str.
...the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood....the event it must appear to have had its origin in the risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence."*... | |
| |
It need not have been foreseen or or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence. 
