Hinchuk v. Swift & Co.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22304.,22304.
• Citation: 149 Minn. 1,182 N.W. 622
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: HINCHUK v. SWIFT & CO.

149 Minn. 1

182 N.W. 622

HINCHUK

v.SWIFT & CO.

No. 22304.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 22, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.

Proceeding by Mary Hinchuk, formerly Mary Bush, against Swift & Co. for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Alex Bush, an employé. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

An employé injured during the course of his employment, though by the willful act of a coemployé, is within the Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8203, 8230), if there is some causal relation between the employment and the injury, that is if the injury be one which may be seen to have had its origin in the nature of the employment. An injury inflicted by a coemployé as a result of a quarrel over the manner of doing their work is within the rule.

Under our statute a wife is conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent upon her husband unless voluntarily living apart from him. The trial court found that plaintiff was so dependent. Applying the rule stated in State ex rel. Neissen v. District Court, 142 Minn. 335, 172 N. W. 133, it is held that the finding is sustained. Barrows, Stewart & Metcalf, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Drill & Drill, of St. Paul, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

1. This case arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Alex Bush was in the employ of defendant at its packing plant at South Saint Paul. He and a workman named Harper were engaged in trucking meat to a washing machine. When the truck reached the machine it was unloaded piece by piece. Two men worked together on a truck. One would pull and the other would push and the fair way was to take turns. Bush and Harper quarreled over the moving of the truck, each claimed he was being compelled to do more than his share. The testimony is somewhat in conflict but one witness testified that they quarreled over who should push and who should pull the truck. Finally Bush took the handles and pulled and Harper pushed. When they reached the washing machine they quarreled some more, each calling the other names. When they finished the argument Bush started to work unloading meat but Harper walked 12 or 15 steps away, picked up a piece of iron pipe that lay there and struck Bush over the head and caused his death. The trial court allowed compensation under the statute.

The statute is that compensation shall be paid by the employer, ‘in every case of personal injury or death of his employé, caused by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment.’ G. S. 1913, § 8203. The word ‘accident’ is defined to mean ‘an unexpected or unforeseen event, happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault and producing at the time, injury to the physical structure of the body.’ G. S. 1913, § 8230(h). The act is declared not to ‘include an injury caused by * * * a third person or fellow employé * * * because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employé, or because of his employment.’ G. S. 1913, § 8230(i).

Section 8230(h) gives us no trouble. Section 8203 and section 8230(i) taken together may clearly include an injury inflicted by the wilful act of another. See State ex rel. Anseth v. District Court, 134 Minn. 16, 158 N. W. 713, L. R. A. 1916F, 957;State ex rel. Johnson Sash & Door Co. v. District Court, 140 Minn. 75, 167 N. W. 283, L. R. A. 1918E, 502. This is the prevailing construction of similar statutes as applied to cases similar to this.

In Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission, 285 Ill. 31, 120 N. E. 530, two employés in culling barrel staves became involved in a dispute because one took staves from the rack of the other. One injured the other. Compensation was allowed.

In Swift & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 287 Ill. 564, 122 N. E. 796, an employé whose duty it was to repair leaks in steam pipes in a large packing plant was injured in a fight with the foreman of a department to which he had been summoned, the altercation growing out of matters connected with the injured employé's work. The statute was held to apply.

In Matter of Heitz v. Ruppert, 218 N. Y. 148, 112 N. E. 750, L. R. A. 1917A, 344, claimant, employed as a driver by a brewing company took exception to the manner in which a fellow workman washed off the horses. A quarrel ensued and in physical encounter that grew out of it, claimant was injured. Held, entitled to compensation.

In Polar Ice & Fuel Co. v. Mulray (Ind. App.) 119 N. E. 149, an employé of an ice company, employed to check and collect for shortage of drivers, was shot and killed by a driver as a result of a quarrel over collections. Compensation was allowed.

In Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 686, 151 Pac. 398, a worker on a railroad section was told by the foreman to drop his shovel and get his time but the man refused and the foreman undertook to take his shovel from him and was injured. Compensation was allowed.

In McIntyre v. A. Rodgers & Co., 41 Scottish Law Reporter, 107, two workmen engaged in a tussle over the possession of a brush to be used in the work and one was injured. The statute was held to apply.

The principle applicable to such cases is that the injury is included within the statute if there is some causal relation between the employment and the injury. Not that the injury must be one which ought to have been foreseen, but it must be one which, after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in the nature of the employment.

This is such a case. Bush and Harper became involved in a quarrel over the manner of doing the work in which they were jointly engaged. There was no personal antipathy. Differences over the work caused the whole trouble. The trial court evidently took the view that there was no real cessation of hotilities from the...