« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
(311 Nl. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) who lived on the fifth floor of an employer's interest and for its benefit apartment house which was burned at that Zacharachi should be discharged, night, she being apparently required and when Cranney was hired and into live there. The court said: "In this trusted with this general authority, case the risk of injury as a result of which he exercised in a reasonable fire was one which might have been and suitable way, it was contemplated contemplated by any reasonable per- that whatever befell him when acting son entering the employment of re- strictly within the scope of his emspondent. Even though such risk was ployment, even if the time and condian 'extraordinary risk which is only tions could not be forecast, was inciindirectly connected with the employ- dental to and part of the employment, owing to the special nature of ment." the employment, it was a risk inci- An award of compensation to a head dental to such employment. During waitress who lived at a hotel, which the twenty-four hours of ordinary award was based on her contracting days deceased was continuously act- typhoid fever from drinking water ing in the course of her employment; from an artesian well at the hotel, has she was required under her contract been held to be warranted. Franto sleep in the room selected by re- kamp v. Fordney Hotel (1923) 222 spondent; she apparently had no other Mich. 525, 193 N. W. 204. place in which she might sleep; the In Chitty v. Nelson (1908) 126 L. T. duty of deceased to sleep in the bed- Jo. (Eng.) 172, 2 B. W. C. C. 496, comroom involved a risk of fire, a risk to pensation was awarded for the death which she was particularly exposed on of a hotel kitchenmaid by being suffoaccount of the distance from the cated in her room by smoke from a street and the location of the bedroom fire which started in the room immein a building used as an apartment diately under hers, after the servants house, in which a large number of had all retired. There was no quesfamilies resided. If deceased had not tion that the accident happened in the been in the service of respondent at course of the servant's employment, the time of the fire, the accident by but the defense contended that the which she lost her life would not have girl did not occupy an abnormally happened to her. The accident was dangerous position. The court held ‘in the course of the employment of that the accident arose out of her emthe deceased, because it was at a time ployment as well, and said: "In the during which she was employed, and present case it will be conceded that, the deceased was occupying a room but for the fact of the deceased being designated, selected, and furnished by in the service of the respondent at the respondent, which it was her duty un- time of the fire, the accident by which der her contract of employment to oc- she lost her life would not have hapcupy. ... The accident arose 'out pened to her. It will also be conceded of the employment of the deceased, that it was part of her duty to sleep in because it was something the risk of the room assigned to her, a duty which which might have been contemplated involved a certain amount of risk in by a reasonable person when she en- case of fire,-a risk to which she was tered the employment of the respond- exposed not only on account of the disent, as incidental to it.”
tance from the ground, but also from In Cranney's Case (1919) 232 Mass. the fact that her fellow servant was 149, 15 A.L.R. 584, 122 N. E. 266, the an elderly woman suffering from bad shooting of a hotel head waiter by a legs, which naturally would enhance waiter whom he had discharged was the difficulties of any rapid escape for held to have arisen out of the for- her, and also for the deceased, if she mer's employment. The head waiter determined to stand by her, as it is in was eating lunch at the hotel while off evidence she actually did. This being duty, and the fact that he was subject so, I am of the opinion that the fact to call while in the hotel was stressed. of sleeping in this room and sharing The court said: “It was plainly in the it with an elderly and inactive fellow
servant was part of a duty which the the viewpoint of loyalty to one's emdeceased owed to her employer and to ployer, are not only outside of the emherself,-a duty which exposed her to ployee's specific employment and duty, a risk in case of fire more than the but which are in themselves of such a usual and ordinary risk, and the con- hazardous character as that the emsequence of which proved fatal to her; ployee ought not to be reasonably exand therefore, finding this as a fact, I pected or required to do them, except hold that the accident by which the as a matter of immediate necessity or deceased lost her life did arise both emergency, even though they might be out of and in the course of her em- within the scope of the employment. ployment in the respondent's service." This is such an identical case. Even
In Alderidge v. Merry  W. C. if the deceased had been the janitress & Ins. Rep. 97, 47 Ir. L. T. 5,  2 in charge of the building generally Ir. R. 308, 6 B. W. C. C. 450—C. A., she could not reasonably be expected an injury to a work girl's eye by rea- to do the thing she was essaying to do, son of a bit of mortar falling into it for it was peculiarly the work of a from the ceiling of a hotel garret man-and it might even be said of a where she slept was held to be in the young and active man-to climb out course of her employment as servant of a window, find a precarious footat the hotel, and to have arisen out of ing upon a narrow ledge between the employment, she being required to 3 or 4 feet below it, and thence sleep there and having just got out of descend by lean-to stepladder bed in the morning to light a fire in to the bottom of
light well response to her employer's call.
nearly 9 feet below the point of In Williamson v. Industrial Acci. exit from the window. We think the Commission (1918) 177 Cal. 715, 171 attempted doing of this act by the dePac. 797, it was held that an injury to ceased, admittedly outside the range a hotel or rooming-house chamber- of her designated duties, was also so maid from climbing into a light well clearly beyond the scope of her emto clean it of litter, to which the own- ployment as to require no further diser of the property had called her at- cussions." tention when her employer, the man- In Daly v. Bates & Roberts (1918) ager of the house, was not on the 224 N. Y. 126, 120 N. E. 118, reversing premises, was not by accident arising (1918) 183 App. Div. 914, 169 N. Y. out of and in the course of her employ. Supp. 1090, a hotel laundress who ment, the cleaning of the light well lived at the hotel injured her wrist being no part of her duties, but she while washing her own clothes at having volunteered to do it to help the night. This injury was held to be outjanitor, who was ill. The court said: side the protection of the act, inas"It is conceded by the respondent much as "she was not engaged in the herein that, in attempting to do said performance of any duty she was act, the decedent did step aside from employed to perform,
to perform, or directly the sphere of her specific employment, connected with or incidental to and was thus beyond its scope, but it the work of the employer but is contended that, since the act which her labor there was entirely disshe was undertaking to do was under- associated with the work of her emtaken out of loyalty to the interests ployer.” The court further reasoned of her employer and for the latter's that "had the claimant remained in benefit, the statute should be con- her room in the hotel, and engaged strued so liberally as to allow compen- her time in mending her clothing, sation for the injury sustained in at- and while so engaged met with an altempting to perform it. We think, cident by reason of using a scissors, however, it would be an unwarranted it could scarcely be held that such inextension of the statute to give it ap- jury would arise out of and in the plication to acts done without the course of her employment or was inciknowledge or consent of the employer, dental thereto." which, however commendable from
Compensation has also been denied
to a superintendent of an apartment 221 Pac. 371, it appeared to be ashouse for an injury received one sumed that a chauffeur who was killed morning on the stairs from an alter- at night in his employer's house by a cation with a tenant in reference to Chinese cook, after he (the chauffeur) a key, following the superintendent's had been reporting to his employer calling on the tenant's wife, the super- and went downstairs with the emintendent being not on his master's ployer to investigate a noise which business at the time, although he was sounded like a burglary, was acting in apparently on duty (Muller v. H. & A. the course of his employment, and, Cohen (1919) 186 App. Div. 845, 174 further, that if he had been killed by a N. Y. Supp. 736); and to a janitress of burglar under such curcumstances an apartment house who, with her the accident would have arisen out of family, occupied an apartment there, his employment. The court considand was injured by the fall of part of ered, however, that he was killed from the ceiling in her kitchen as she was motives of private revenge, there bepreparing to eat breakfast, even upon ing some evidence of a previous scuffle the assumption that she was always between the chauffeur and the cook, on duty when her services were re- and that the latter had no intention of quired, inasmuch as at the time of the killing his employer or molesting the accident she was doing nothing for property, and held that the accident her employers nor anything incidental did not arise out of the employment. thereto (Lauterbach v. Jarett (1919) Lawlor, J., dissented, believing the 189 App. Div. 303, 178 N. Y. Supp. commission's finding to be warranted, 480).
that the Chinaman was a marauder In the reported case (KRAFT v. WEST and that his motive could not be deHOTEL Co. ante, 1245), where compen- termined. sation was denied, it will be noted In Clifford v. Joy (1909) 43 Ir. L. T. that, while the chambermaid lived at 193, 2 B. W. C. C. 32–C. A., compenthe hotel, she was not required to do sation was denied for burns causing so, and the court also stressed the fact the death of a girl servant who had that, in using an alcohol lamp in curl- been drying her hair outside her eming her hair, she was violating an ex- ployer's house, and, upon being called press order, so that the accident did in to take care of a baby in a cradle not arise out of her employment. The near a fire, took a position too close to dissenting opinion, as also the origi- the fire and her blouse was burned. nal opinion of the same court in The court said, in holding that the (1921) Iowa, 185 N. W. 895, accident did not arise out of her emwhich was reversed on the rehearing, ployment: "The real question is considered that the fire occurred after whether the blouse took fire because she had finished curling her hair, and the girl was drying her hair near the that, as she owed her employer the fire. If we came to the conclusion duty to put it out, in order to protect that she was engaged at two operahis property and the lives of the tions,-one in charge of the child, and guests, her burns arose out of her em- the other drying her hair,-the quesployment while saving him in the tion is, Which of the two brought her emergency.
within reach of the fire and set her
clothes on fire? She would not have d. Employers' private residences.
been in the place in which she took Although no case has been found
fire by reason of being in charge of which allows compensation to a serv- the baby, and there is ample proof ant living at an employer's private that the accident wholly arose out of residence upon this particular ground, the operation of being engaged in drythe following cases, in which compen- ing her hair. The risk of taking fire sation has been denied, will be of in- while engaged in drying her hair was terest:
not one within the scope of her emIn Royal Indemnity Co. v. Industri- ployment." al Acci. Commission (1923) Cal. - A lady's maid whose eye was injured by her hitting it accidentally stable who lived on the top floor of with her thumb in trying to ward off a the stable building, from a fall while cockchafer that flew through an open going downstairs from his apartment, window toward an electric lamp on a has been held to have arisen out of and hot night, while the maid was sewing, in the course of his employment. Leshas been refused compensation upon lie v. O'Connor & Richman (1917) 220 the ground that the accident did not N. Y. 672, 116 N. E. 1057, affirming arise out of her employment. Craske (1916) 173 App. Div. 988, 158 N. Y. v. Wigan (1909] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 635-C. Supp. 1120. This is a memorandum A. The court said: “The risk that a decision, but it is stated by Kellogg, cockchafer may, on a hot summer eve- P. J., in Murphy v. Ludlum Steel Co. ning, fly into a lighted room, is a risk, (N. Y.) infra, that the record shows if a risk at all, which is common to all that the manager at first received his humanity, and bears no relation to the wages and paid for the apartment, but employment of a lady's maid. The later he was not charged for it. fact that the appellant struck herself A finding has also been held warinvoluntarily, owing to the excessive ranted in favor of a caretaker of club susceptibility of her nerve centers grounds and buildings who was inproduced by her alarm at the cock- jured in trying to put out a fire which chafer, does not make this an accident started from his burning some dry arising out of the employment. The grass. Dietz Club v. Niehaus (1923) arguments on behalf of the appellant Neb. —, 193 N. W. 344. have been too extravagant to do more And in Prevost v. Gheens Realty Co. than provoke a smile. I feel a difficul- (1922) 151 La. 508, 92 So. 38, compenty in dealing with them in a serious sation was awarded (under the Emvein. The arguments have been full ployers' Liability Act, which appears of amusement, but have carried with to correspond with the Workmen's them no conviction."
Compensation Acts) for an injury to a In Griffiths v. Robins  W. C. laborer at a sugar factory who had & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 44, 10 B. W. C. C. been working until nearly midnight, 90, an injury to a parlor maid from a and was on his way to a bunk house needle sticking in her knee, she hav- on the premises, where the men were ing left it in her dress which she had permitted to sleep, he having apparbeen repairing when called by her em- ently fallen on or near a railroad ployer, was held to have not arisen 'track. out of her employment, being not a In upholding a common-law finding risk specially incident to it.
of damages for the death of a janitor In denying compensation to a cook of an office building by being struck by who was injured by a fall in walking an electric wire that fell in front of across a kitchen to get some water for the tenement house where he lived, washing towels, due apparently to and which belonged to the company wearing a slipper that did not fit, rath- that owned also the office building and er than to a slippery condition of
plant, the janitor having just started the floor, the court remarked that, if
for work in the morning, carrying a such an accident should be held to basket of laundry to the restaurant in arise out of the employment, it would the office building for his wife, who appear to be impossible to avoid the conducted the restaurant for the same conclusion that every domestic serv
company, the court held that the case ant, so long as she is in her employ
did not come within the provision of er's house, is insured by her employer
the act, inasmuch as the janitor was against any accident whatever. Han
not acting in the course of his employnifin v. Fitzmaurice (1921] W. C. &
ment at the time of the accident, nor Ins. Rep. 143,  2 Ir. R. 44, 55 Ir.
was he upon the employer's premises L. T. 65, 14 B. W. C. C. 320-C. A.
nor at the plant, the buildings consti
tuting the plant being about 800 feet e. Miscellaneous.
from the house. In a well-reasoned An injury to the manager of a livery dissenting opinion it was argued (by
Kellogg, P.J.) that this was a case for Sherwood (1909) 127 L. T. Jo. (Eng.) compensation under the act, inasmuch 86, 2 B. W. C. C. 462. as the husband and wife had been Asphyxiation of steel worker hired together and the company ex- while asleep in his bed in a cottage pected them to assist each other, and which he was allowed by his employer housed them as part of the contract. to occupy in consideration of attendHe also believed that the wire was es- ing to cleaning of offices did not arise sentially a part of the plant, but in- out of or in the course of his employtimated that an injury to the janitor ment, where he was not obliged to live after hours from the fall of a chimney in the cottage. Wray v. Taylor Bros. on the house would probably not arise & Co.  W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) out of or be in the course of his em- 446, 109 L. T. N. S. 120, 6 B. W. C. C. ployment. Murphy v. Ludlum Steel 529—C. A. Co. (1918) 182 App. Div. 139, 169 In Butler v. Burton-on-Trent Union N. Y. Supp. 781, affirmed in (1919) 227 (1912) 106 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 824, 5 N. Y. 634, 126 N. E. 915.
B. W. C. C. 355—C. A., a fall of a In Briskin v. Hyman (1922) 203 workhouse master down some steps App. Div. 275, 197 N. Y. Supp. 111, near his residence on the workhouse affirmed in (1923) 236 N. Y. 522, 142 grounds, resulting from his becoming N. E. 268, compensation was denied dizzy from coughing as he was sitting for the death of an acting manager of at the head of the steps, was held not a garage from a fire at the garage on a to arise from his employment, there night when he was staying there, as being "nothing peculiar to his employhe had been in the habit of doing at ment which rendered the risk of this times for his own convenience mostly, accident happening greater than that but was not required to do.
to which other people are exposed.” An injury to a club porter from try- A finding that a hospital porter who ing to climb into an open window at had been cleaning out a mortuary conabout midnight, upon returning after tracted scarlet fever from an "accia day off and finding the clubhouse dent” arising out of and in the course closed, has been held to be without the of his employment has been held to be scope of his employment, and the por- unwarranted in the absence of eviter also was apparently guilty of "se- dence that, at the time of his cleaning rious and wilful misconduct,” the the mortuary, any body of a person court holding, that, “during the time who had died of scarlet fever was of his absence from the club premises there,'notwithstanding he had been in for purposes of his own, the risk of an the fever wards the same day, the fact accident was his risk, and not that of of “injury” being not of itself suffithe employer, and not until he had cient. Martin V. Manchester Corp. reached the inside of the premises,  W. N. (Eng.) 105, 106 L. T. where his duties lay, was such a risk N. S. 741, 28 Times L. R. 344, 76 J. P. transferred from his shoulders to 251, 10 L. G. R. 996,  W. C. Rep. those of the employer.” Watson v. 289, 5 B. W. C. C. 259—C. A.
E. W. H.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND, Piff. in Err.,
United States Supreme Court - February 18, 1924.
(264 U. S. 160, 68 L. ed. — Adv. Ops. p. 288, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296.) Banks – effect of regulation relieving from liability.
1. The regulation of the Federal reserve banks, that they assume no