Boyd v. Chase

• Decision Date: 28 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 13554.,13554.
• Citation: 89 Ind.App. 374,166 N.E. 611
• Parties: BOYD v. CHASE et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

89 Ind.App. 374

166 N.E. 611

BOYD

v.CHASE et al.

No. 13554.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 28, 1929.

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Emma Chase for the death of her husband, August Chase, opposed by Vincent R. Boyd, employer, and the Ætna Life Insurance Company, insurance carrier. The Industrial Board awarded compensation, and the employer appeals. Reversed.Fesler, Elam & Young, of Hammond, and Irving M. Fauvre, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

McMahon & Conroy, of Hammond, for appellee.

REMY, P. J.

Appellant was a cement contractor having in his employment a small number of cement workers, including August Chase. The work was done at locations called for by appellant's contracts, the place of work changing from time to time as contracts were completed. A day's work for employees began at 8 o'clock a. m. at the site of the job on which they were engaged; and it was the custom of the employees, including Chase, to assemble at appellant's home, and go from there to work. On the morning of October 15, 1927, Chase, who lived in the town of Hobart, started for appellant's home, in another part of the same town, to join others of the crew to go to work. On his way, he stopped at the intersection of Fourth and Main streets, and took out some of the forms which had been used in the construction of a sidewalk for which appellant had the contract. He had not been instructed to take them out, and it was not a part of his work. While Chase was there, a fellow employee by the name of Wood came along going to work in his own automobile, in which the two went to appellants home. Wood was the only one of appellant's employees who used his own car to go to and from work. The others when they had assembled at appellant's home were usually taken to work by appellant in his truck, except that one or more sometimes rode with Wood in his car. Wood and all the employees might have gone in the truck had they chosen so to do. On this particular occasion, appellant stated that another hand was needed, and requested Wood to go with his automobile by the home of a certain man and bring him along. In compliance with the request, Wood proceeded as directed, taking Chase, who had voluntarily got in his automobile. Going to get the extra hand made it necessary to make a detour from the main road. Having completed the detour, and just as Wood was entering again upon the main road leading to the place of work, his car collided with another motor vehicle, and as a result Chase was killed. Other employees were taken to work that morning by appellant in his truck, in which he also took some cement and form lumber.

Appellee, widow of Chase, was awarded compensation, and this appeal followed.

[1][2][3] The question for determination is: Under the facts stated above, which facts were established by the evidence and found by the Industrial Board, was the...