Hager v. State Comp. Comm'r, 7348.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 7348.,7348. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAGER. v. STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER et al. |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where an employee is accidentally injured upon premises owned or controlled by the employer at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while the employee is going to or from his work on a permissible route in general use by the employees, such injury will be deemed to have arisen from and in the course of the employment, within the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Proceeding by Henry Hager, claimant, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. From a decision of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the claimant appeals.
Reversed, and the case remanded.
W. L. Taylor, of Logan, for appellant.
Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and R. Dennis Steed, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
HATCHER, P.
The claimant was employed in a mine of a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund. The mine was on a hill, and a hoist was operated by the employer to take the employees up and down the hill. On the occasion of claimant's injury, his work was over for the day; he signalled for the hoist several times, but the operator failed to respond; in such case it "was up to the men to walk off" or wait indefinitely on the hoist (according to the mine superintendent), so the claimant started down the hill on a path used regularly ("almost daily") by the employees when the hoist was not available: and, when a few hundred feet from the hoist landing (on the hill), and while still on the employer's property, he fell and broke his leg. Compensation was denied on the ground that claimant's injury was not received in the course of his employment, and was not the result thereof.
Upon an examination of the authorities, we find it to be the general rule that, when an employee is accidentally injured upon premises owned or controlled by the employer at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while the employee is going to or from his work on a permissible route in general use by the employees, such injury will be deemed to have arisen from and in the course of the employment within the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1931, 23-1-1 et seq.). See the following authorities on Workmen's Compensation Laws: 1 Schneider, p. 779; Harper, § 36; Boyd, § 486; annotation, 49 A. L. R. pages 426 and 443. This rule accords with the opinion of this court expressed in De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W. Va. 32, on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Morris v. State Compensation Com'r
-
Brown v. City of Wheeling
...returning from work." In accord, McEwan v. State Compensation Comm'r, 123 W.Va. 310, 14 S.E.2d 914 (1941); Hager v. State Compensation Comm'r, 112 W.Va. 492, 165 S.E. 668 (1932). See also, Courtless v. Jolliffe, 203 W.Va. 258, 507 S.E.2d 136 (1998) (per curiam); Harris v. State Workmen's Co......
-
Bennett v. Buckner, 12512
...In determining whether a claim is compensable in this respect, each case must be judged on its facts. In Hager v. State Compensation Commissioner et al., 112 W.Va. 492, 165 S.E. 668, the syllabus is as follows: 'Where an employee is accidentally injured upon premises owned or controlled by ......
-
Bilchak v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
...the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the employment, such injury is held compensable. Hager v. State Comp. Comm'r., 112 W.Va. 492, 165 S.E. 668; Canoy v. State Comp. Commissioner, 113 W.Va. 914, 170 S.E. 184. If the injury occurs on the premises of the employer wh......