107 S.E. 649 (Va. 1921), Taylor v. Binswanger & Co.

Citation:107 S.E. 649, 130 Va. 545
Party Name:Alvin Taylor v. Binswanger & Co., Et Al
Case Date:June 29, 1921
Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 649

107 S.E. 649 (Va. 1921)

130 Va. 545

Alvin Taylor


Binswanger & Co., Et Al

Supreme Court of Virginia

June 29, 1921

Certified question from the Industrial Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 61 of the workmen's compensation act (Acts 1918 p. 637).


The Industrial Commission, pursuant to the provisions of section 61 of the workmen's compensation act (Acts 1918, page 637), has certified to us a question which is presented as follows:

"The claimant, Alvin Taylor, was, on the 21st day of January, 1921, and had for some time prior thereto been, employed by the defendant, Binswanger & Company, at its glass factory in the city of Richmond. The claimant is a boy a little over fifteen years of age. He was employed as an office boy, and among other duties incident to his employment, did errands for his employer. The employees were allowed one hour for lunch, from twelve noon to one P. M. The employer made no provision for furnishing lunch to its [130 Va. 546] employees, but the noon hour was allowed them for the purpose of procuring their lunch. Sometimes the employees would bring their lunch with them and eat it upon the premises.

"The claimant's working hours were from 8 A. M. to 6 P. M. On January 21, 1921, the claimant left the premises at 12 and was proceeding on his bicycle, using the most direct route, to his home where he expected to get his lunch, when at the corner of 11th and Decatur streets, he being on the right side of 11th street going east, he was run into by an automobile coming down Decatur street and in a northerly direction, said automobile being on the left side of Decatur street.

"The bicycle upon which the claimant was riding was struck and the claimant was thrown to the ground, in consequence of which he suffered a fracture of the skull on the left side of his head, and was carried to the Memorial Hospital. He was operated upon and continued at the hospital for a period of three weeks and two days, when he was discharged; but was unable to return to work until the 5th of April. The bicycle upon which the claimant was riding the day of the accident was his own property but was frequently used by him in connection with his duties as an errand boy for his employer.

"The defense made by the carrier company is that the accident thus...

To continue reading