From
the Industrial Board of Indiana.
Certified
question of law.
Proceedings
under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the matter of one
Omer Ayers. Certified question of law by the Industrial
Board.
Question answered.
FELT
J. Batman, P. J., Dausman, and Hottel, JJ., concur. Caldwell
J., and Ibach, C. J., dissent.
OPINION
FELT, J.
The
Industrial Board of the State of Indiana has certified to
this court a statement of facts and propounded a question of
law thereon, for decision and determination by the court, as
follows:
"Statement
of Facts: On and prior to the 23rd day of November, 1916
Omer Ayers was in the employment of the Ansted Spring and
Axle Company as a shearer at an average weekly wage of $
15.95; that on and prior to the 23rd day of November, 1916, a
custom existed in the defendant's factory and among its
employes whereby the employes quit their actual work about
fifteen minutes before going off actual duty and leaving the
factory; that during said fifteen minutes it was the custom
among the said employes to wash their hands and faces and
make changes in their clothing preparatory to leaving the
factory; that for the purpose of washing their hands and
faces the custom existed among the employes of heating a
small bar of iron in the furnace and then dropping the heated
bar of iron into a bucket of water; that this custom existed
with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Ansted Spring and
Axle Co.; that on the evening of November 23rd, 1916, the
fires in the furnaces had gone out when the employes quit
their actual work for the purpose of washing and preparing to
leave the factory; that on discovering the furnace had gone
out the said Omer Ayers and another employe went into a room
adjacent to the one in which they worked, but which was in a
separate department from the one in which
they worked; that in the said room the said Omer Ayers and
his coemploye observed a tank of hot liquid which had the
appearance of water and which the said Omer Ayers and his
coemploye thought to be water; that acting upon said belief
they raised the lid of said tank and the said Omer Ayers
placed a bucket of cold water therein; that the liquid in the
tank was not water, but was an explosive acid; that when the
cold bucket, which the said Omer Ayers placed therein, came
into contact with the acid in the tank, an explosion occurred
by which the said Omer Ayers was severely burnt over his
head, face and hands; that as a result of said injury he was
wholly disabled for work continuously from the 23rd day of
November, 1916, until and including the 7th day of May, 1917,
and continuously since he has been partially incapacitated
for work, as a result of said injury, and is now so partially
incapacitated and will be for a period of time which cannot
be determined at this time; that the Ansted Spring and Axle
Co. had actual personal knowledge of the accident resulting
in the injury of the said Omer Ayers at the time that it
occurred, and had actual knowledge of the extent of his
injuries at the time that they were inflicted; that the
evening of November 23rd, 1916, was the first occasion upon
which the said Omer Ayers had worked after the fires had gone
out of the furnaces, and was the first occasion when he had
gone into the adjoining room and attempted to heat his water
by placing the cold bucket in the acid tank; that at the time
of the said injury and prior thereto, the said acid tank
contained no label or placard indicating its contents, or
that the contents were dangerous; that since the injury of
the said Omer
Ayers the said employer has labeled the
said tank so as to indicate the character of its contents and
that it is dangerous."
"Question
of Law: Did the accident resulting in the injury, described
in the foregoing statement of facts, arise out of the
employment of Omer Ayers with the Ansted Spring and Axle
Company?"
The
words "by accident arising out of and in the course of
the employment," as used in the workmen's
compensation acts, are liberally construed to accomplish the
humane purposes of such laws. Holland, etc., Sugar
Co. v. Shraluka (1917), 64 Ind.App. 545, 116
N.E. 330, 331, and cases cited; In re Harraden
(1917), 66 Ind.App. 298, 118 N.E. 142.
A
workman who receives an injury while at a place on, or
reasonably near, the premises where he is to work, or at a
place to which his employment requires him to go while doing
something incident to or connected with his employment, or
which is reasonably necessary for, and preparatory to, the
beginning of his work, or while doing something reasonably
connected with his employment, or incident thereto, after his
actual labors in his employment are completed for the day, or
for any particular period, may be allowed compensation for
such injury. L. R. A. 1916A 235, 236, 237 and notes;
Terlecki v. Strauss (1914), 85 N.J.L. 454,
89 A. 1023; Edmunds v. S. S. Peterston
(1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 157; Webber v. Wansborough
Paper Co. (1914), 7 B. W. C. C. 795; Keyser v.
Burdick & Co. (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 87;
Scott v. Payne Bros. (1914), 85 N.J.L. 446,
89 A. 927, 4 N. C. C. A. 682; Sundine's Case
(1914), 218 Mass. 1, 105 N.E. 433, L. R. A. 1916A 318;
McNicol's Case (1913), 215 Mass. 497, 102 N.E.
697, L. R. A. 1916A 306.
Where an employe is injured while on duty, or
while doing something incident to his employment and
reasonably necessary to his personal health or comfort
though not...
