Central Const. Corporation v. Harrison

Decision Date02 December 1920
Docket Number30.
Citation112 A. 627,137 Md. 256
PartiesCENTRAL CONST. CORPORATION et al. v. HARRISON.
CourtMaryland 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.

THOMAS J.

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:

"Joel Harrison [the appellee here] was an employee of the Central Construction Company, a corporation which was doing certain construction work for the United States government at Edgewood Arsenal, Magnolia, Maryland. He was seriously injured on the 19th of June [July], 1918, and thereafter filed a claim for compensation with the State Industrial Accident Commission against the Central Construction Company, employer, and the Maryland Casualty Company, insurer, and was awarded compensation by that body. An appeal was taken by the employer and insurer. The appeal was heard in the Baltimore city court, without a jury, upon a transcript of the record from the Commission, in addition to certain facts set forth in a stipulation between the parties filed in the case and which appears in the record. *** At the conclusion of the case the court ruled, as a matter of law that the injury described in the stipulated facts and in the papers in the case, under the circumstances there described was not one which arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Maryland Workmen's Compensation Act, and in accordance with this holding the decree of the State Industrial Accident Commission was reversed. From the judgment reversing the award of the Commission the appeal before us was taken."

Having referred to the provisions of the Maryland act, this court said in disposing of the case:

"In this case it is not disputed that the appellant was engaged in an extrahazardous employment. The sole question in the case is: Did his injuries arise out of and in the course of that employment? The stipulation to which we have referred discloses the facts and circumstances of the employment as well as the circumstances under which the injuries were received, and, in the view we take of the case, it will be sufficient to refer to what we regard as the controlling and determining facts appearing in the stipulation. The appellant lived in Baltimore City. It was a part of his contract with the Central Construction Company that it would furnish him free transportation to his work at Magnolia. He and other workmen of the construction company used certain work trains over the Pennsylvania Railroad from Union Station, Baltimore, to and from their work. The construction company furnished him a button for identification, and this button was evidence to the conductor of his right to free transportation. The superintendent of the company said to the workmen, as expressed in the evidence before the Commission, 'You have free transportation on your button.' It appears from the stipulated facts that 'on July 19, 1918, Joel Harrison, the employee and claimant in this cause, proceeded to Union Station and there was directed to board what he understood to be a work train of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company bound for Magnolia, and that after boarding said train and after same had left Union Station he was told by a railroad official of said train, the Pennsylvania ticket collector, that the train did not stop at Magnolia, but stopped only at Aberdeen, and that he (Harrison) should leave the train where it made a stop just before reaching Back River station, and take the following work train.
'That accordingly Joel Harrison left said train at the point in the preceding paragraph indicated and walked a distance of several hundred feet into Back River station, and was there told by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company's policeman that the following train would not stop at Back River station, but would stop at the same point where the train which Harrison had just left had stopped, to wit, several hundred feet from the station; that thereupon Harrison went back to the point that he had just left the first train, and was proceeding to board the following train, which in the meantime had pulled in and stopped, when the train suddenly started and threw him under the wheels, causing an injury which directly resulted in the loss of his right foot at a point midway between the knee and ankle.'
When the injury occurs before the beginning or after the termination of work, there are two general rules applicable to the question as to whether it arose out of and in the course of the employment. The first is that an employee, while on his way to work, is not in the course of his employment. The second is that, where the workman is employed to work at a certain place, and as a part of his contract of employment there is an agreement that his employer shall furnish him free transportation to or from his work, the period of service continues during the time of transportation, and if an injury occurs during the course of transportation it is held to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The cases relied on by the appellees announce and apply the first rule. The second rule has the support of English and American cases."

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
5 cases
  • Boteler v. Gardiner-Buick Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 1933
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 1950
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1923
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 11 Abril 1945
    ...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. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT