Harrison v. Central Const. Corp.
|108 A. 874,135 Md. 170
|21 November 1919
|HARRISON v. CENTRAL CONST. CORPORATION et al.
|Court of Appeals of Maryland
Motion for Rehearing Denied February 6, 1920.
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Carroll T. Bond, Judge.
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. Award for claimant by the State Industrial Accident Commission reversed by Baltimore City Court, and claimant appeals. Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded.
Following is the stipulation referred to in opinion:
It is hereby agreed and stipulated by and between the parties to the above-entitled cause, through their respective attorneys that the following facts are pertinent to the issues in said cause, are susceptible of legal proof, and shall be taken as true for the purposes of this cause, and for the purpose of any appeal in this case:
1. That Joel Harrison, employé and claimant, was employed by the Central Construction Corporation at and prior to July 19 1918, for work upon the Edgewood Arsenal at Magnolia.
2. That the Central Construction Company was engaged solely within the state of Maryland upon work under a percentage contract for the United States government in the development and construction of Edgewood Arsenal at Magnolia, aforesaid.
3. That Joel Harrison lived in the city of Baltimore, and traveled to and from his work at Edgewood Arsenal, aforesaid, upon the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company running from Union Station, Baltimore, to Magnolia Station, at Magnolia.
4. That Harrison in going to and from work, aforesaid, rode upon what is known as a "special work train" operated by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company over its lines, as aforesaid.
5. That there are several (at least two) of these special work trains leaving Union Station each morning for Magnolia, Aberdeen and other points adjacent to said Edgewood Arsenal and returning therefrom in the evening.
6. That prior to the date upon which the running of the special work trains, aforesaid, was inaugurated the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had regular trains on regular schedule which carried the workmen, resident in Baltimore, of the several contracts at Edgewood Arsenal to and from Magnolia, and that the so-called special trains were put on simply because the increasing number of workmen made it difficult, if not impossible, to handle the situation on the regular local trains.
7. That all of the workmen and employés, residing in Baltimore, of the several contractors engaged upon government work at Edgewood Arsenal customarily ride upon these trains.
8. That clerks and office employés resident in Baltimore as well as mechanics and laborers are furnished free transportation over the said Pennsylvania Railroad lines and upon said special work trains upon displaying either an identification button or an identification button and an identification card.
9. That the employés who are given free transportation upon said special work trains are not paid by the Central Construction Corporation for the time engaged in making the run from Union Station to Magnolia, but that said trains are so scheduled as to reach Magnolia in ordinary course, prior to the hour set for the beginning of the day's work, and that the pay of the employés on any special work train so scheduled to reach Magnolia before the beginning of the day's work are ordinarily paid from the hour set for the beginning of the day's work, even when the train is late and reaches Magnolia after such hour.
10. That all employés engaged upon the Edgewood Arsenal, whether employés of the Central Construction Corporation or other contractors there engaged, receive 11 hours' pay for 10 hours' work, and that this rate of pay is not dependent upon the traveling of the employés to and from Baltimore, but applies to all the employés, whether resident upon the Arsenal itself, resident in adjacent villages, or resident in Baltimore.
11. That all legitimate expense incurred by the Central Construction Corporation in its work for the government at Edgewood Arsenal, aforesaid, is ultimately borne by the United States government under the terms of the percentage contract hereinabove referred to.
12. That prior to July 10, 1918, the Central Construction Corporation arranged for the payment of the transportation expense of certain of its employés, as above referred to over the said Pennsylvania Railroad Company's lines.
13. That after July 10, 1918, the United States government, by virtue of an arrangement made through its War Department and by its direct representatives with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, paid the Pennsylvania Railroad Company direct, without the intervention of the Central Construction Corporation, an agreed sum for the transportation of employés of the Central Construction Corporation and employés of other contractors engaged upon work at Edgewood Arsenal, as aforesaid, and transported over the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in the special work trains above mentioned.
14. That on and after July 10, 1918, the Central Construction Corporation did not check up nor take account of in any way its employés traveling to and from their work on the special trains, aforesaid, but that such checking and accounting of the Central Construction Corporation's employés and employés of other contractors at Edgewood Arsenal was done by and under the sole direction of the United States government, through its officers and soldiers in uniform or otherwise.
15. That during the period of his employment by the Central Construction Corporation Harrison was of the class of employés that received free transportation upon the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad hereinabove described.
16. That on July 19, 1918, Joel Harrison, the employé 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.
17. 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.
18. That Harrison, employé and claimant, as aforesaid, was not aware of the precise nature of the arrangement with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company by which he received free transportation over its lines, as aforesaid, but that Harrison had been told when he entered the employ of the Central Construction Corporation that he would be furnished with free transportation. That some time prior to his accident it was announced that the Central Construction Corporation would no longer be responsible for free transportation. That thereafter the workmen were told that the free transportation would be continued, but that, as aforesaid, Harrison did not know at whose instance the free transportation was so continued; whether at the instance of the Central Construction Corporation or at the direct instance of the United States government, acting through its War Department. That Harrison knew, however, that workmen and employés generally of the Central Construction Corporation and other contractors at Edgewood Arsenal were not required by their employers to travel to and fro upon said trains, but were at liberty to use any other mode of conveyance that they preferred, or to live upon the reservation in bunkhouses provided by the employers, or to live in adjacent villages.
19. That Harrison was employed by the Central Construction Corporation through its offices in Baltimore City.
After the signatures the following stipulations were added by agreement to the above series of stipulations prior to argument in the above case:
Add to stipulation 14: That checking was done by the Central Construction Corporation at...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Schwan Food Co. v. Frederick, 1289, Sept. Term, 2017
...be drawn from the facts, the question becomes one of law and may be decided by the court.241 Md.App. 646 Harrison v. Cent. Constr. Corp. , 135 Md. 170, 108 A. 874, 878 (1919) ; Atlantic Refining Co. v. Forrester , 180 Md. 517, 527-29, 25 A.2d 667 (1942). Accordingly, "if there is any eviden......
Montgomery Cnty. v. Maloney
...by a fact-finder that the injury was sustained in the course of employment (emphasis added) (quoting Harrison v. Central Construction Corp. , 135 Md. 170, 180, 108 A. 874 (1919) )). This has been the law since the earliest days of workers' compensation in Maryland.2 The issue for which the ......
Board of Education v. Spradlin, 0320 September Term, 2004.
...132 Md. 203, 206-08, 103 A. 478 (1918); Beasman & Co. v. Butler, 133 Md. 382, 384-86, 105 A. 409 (1918); Harrison v. Central Construction Corp., 135 Md. 170, 180, 108 A. 874 (1919); Baltimore Dry Docks Co. v. Hoffman, 142 Md. 73, 76-77, 120 A. 227 (1923); Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Bitting......
Cicala v. Disability Review Bd. for Prince George's County, 141
...been extensively construed. See, e. g., Knoche v. Cox, 282 Md. 447, 455-56, 385 A.2d 1179, 1183-84 (1978); Harrison v. Central Constr. Co., 135 Md. 170, 180, 108 A. 874, 878 (1919). On some few occasions, this Court has construed the phrase "performance of his duties" appearing in police re......