Central Const. Corporation v. Harrison
Decision Date | 02 December 1920 |
Docket Number | 30. |
Citation | 112 A. 627,137 Md. 256 |
Parties | CENTRAL CONST. CORPORATION et al. v. HARRISON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; John J. Dobler, Judge.
"To to officially reported."
Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act by Joel Harrison for compensation for injuries, opposed by the Central Construction Corporation, employer, and the Maryland Casualty Company, insurer. From judgment of the Baltimore city court affirming award for claimant by the State Industrial Accident Commission, the employer and insurer appeal. Affirmed.
Appellants' proposed questions of fact referred to in opinion follow:
The employer and insurer, by their counsel, request the court to submit to the jury impaneled to try this case the following questions of fact in accordance with section 56 of the Workmen's Compensation Law of Maryland:
Question 1. Was the employee, Joel Harrison, injured while boarding a train of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company?
Answer.
Question 2. Was the train by which Harrison was hurt operated for the sole use of employees of the Central Construction Company?
Answer.
Question 3. Could any persons other than employees of the Central Construction Company ride upon the train by which Harrison was hurt?
Answer.
Question 4. Was the employee injured while upon any property on which the Central Construction Company was engaged in the performance of work?
Answer.
Question 5. Did Central Construction Corporation contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to pay it for the transportation of Harrison from Baltimore to Magnolia on the day he was injured?
Answer.
The employer and insurer pray the court to submit to the jury the following additional questions of fact involved in this appeal:
6. Did the Central Construction Corporation furnish the employee with transportation?
Answer.
7. By whom was the free transportation furnished the employee?
Answer.
8. Did the Central Construction Corporation provide the vehicle or means of conveyance which the employee was riding upon or attempting to board at the time he was hurt?
Answer.
9. Was the train which the employee was attempting to board a train provided by the railway company for the transportation of employees?
Answer.
10. Could the employees of the Central Construction Corporation have ridden on the train which this employee was trying to board by showing his card or button, or both?
Answer.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, URNER, and OFFUTT JJ.
Austin J. Lilly and Walter L. Clark, both of Baltimore, for appellants.
Clifton S. Brown, of Baltimore (Milton Roberts, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. On the first appeal, reported in 135 Md. 170, 108 A. 874, this court, in its statement of the case, said:
Having referred to the provisions of the Maryland act, this court said in disposing of the case:
After referring to these cases, this court held that the lower court had committed an error in its ruling referred to, and in reversing the award of the Commission, and the judgment was accordingly reversed and a new trial awarded.
Upon the handing down...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boteler v. Gardiner-Buick Co.
... ... corporation having a place of business within this State, ... whether the injury for ... 113; Beasman & Co. v ... Butler, 133 Md. 382, 386, 105 A. 409; Harrison v ... Central Constr. Co., 135 Md. 170, 176-180, 108 A. 874; ... ...
-
Congressional Country Club v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
... ... and one as a houseman at the Club, which is a corporation ... resident in Montgomery County and not doing business, or ... 541] in the ... course of the employment. Harrison v. Central ... Construction Company, 135 Md. 170, 108 A. 874; 137 Md ... ...
-
Cook's Case
... ... 76 ... Littler v. George A ... Fuller Co. 223 N.Y. 369. Harrison v. Central Construction ... Corp. 135 Md. 170. Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co ... ...
-
Miller v. James McGraw Co.
...in a manner analogous to the practice in cases sent from the Orphans' Court or Courts of Equity. This was cited with Approval in the Harrison case, supra, in which was further stated that a return to the practice under the Act of 1894 was not contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Act. ......