Capital Paper Co. v. Conner
| Decision Date | 06 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 11924.,11924. |
| Citation | 144 N.E. 474,81 Ind.App. 545 |
| Parties | CAPITAL PAPER CO. v. CONNER. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joanna Conner for the death of Lee Conner, her husband, opposed by the Capital Paper Company, employer. From an award of compensation, the employer appeals. Affirmed.Fesler, Elam & Young and Irving M. Fauvre, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Beckett & Beckett, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
Lee Conner was in the employbent of appellant as salesman. His duties required that he travel in all parts of the city of Indianapolis, though he had “certain routes that he followed on certain days.” These routes were not “stipulated by” appellant, but were “of his own choosing,” and if at any time “anything required his attention off the routes” it was his duty under his employment “to go and attend to it.” At about 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon on Friday, September 14, 1923, which was the day of the week that Conner, as salesman for appellant, made his calls upon customers in the northwest part of the city, he was struck and injured by a street car at a crossing in the central part of the city. He died from the injuries two days later. At the time Conner received the injuries he had in his possession an order book, the entries in which showed that he had taken orders that day in the northwest section of the city. He also had “an account or two” left over “from another day,” which may have made it necessary for him, on that day, to have gone to another part of the city. It was a rule of appellant that its salesmen should report at its main office on Friday afternoon of each week. These reports were made at any time from 2:30 o'clock to 5:00 o'clock p. m. Conner had not made his report at the time he was injured.
From an award of compensation to appellee, the widow and dependent of Conner, this appeal is prosecuted.
The question presented is whether, under the facts above stated, and which were found by the Industrial Board, the accident which resulted in the injury and death of Conner arose out of and in the course of his employment, within the meaning of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1915, p. 392, § 80201 Burns' Supp. 1920). It is urged by appellant that there is no evidence that Conner was acting in the course of his employment at the time of his injury, and that the award is based upon pure speculation.
[1][2][3] It is a well-established rule of law in compensation cases that, where an employé in the performance of his duties as a traveling salesman is required to use the streets of a city, such streets become his place of work, and the hazard incident to travel thereon, including the danger of coming in contact with moving street cars, is a danger incident to his employment. Bachman v. Waterman (1918) 68 Ind. App. 580, 121 N. E. 8;Cook's Case (192...
To continue reading
Request your trial