In re Bollman
| Decision Date | 16 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 10762.,10762. |
| Citation | 73 Ind.App. 46,126 N.E. 639 |
| Parties | In re BOLLMAN. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceedings by Hannah Bollman for compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by one Lewellen. The Industrial Board certified to the court the following questions: (1) Did the accident causing the injury resulting in the death of Bollman arise out of his employment as engineer by Lewellen? (2) Would a finding that the accident causing the death of Bollman arose out of his said employment be sustained by sufficient evidence? (3) Would such finding be according to law? Questions answered in the affirmative.Robert H. Williams and John B. Murphy, both of Crawfordsville, for appellant.
Landers, McKay, Turner & Merrell, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
The Industrial Board has certified to this court questions of law based upon the following facts: One Lewellen, a resident of Montgomery county, owned a threshing outfit which he had operated in his community for more than 10 years immediately prior to July 16, 1919. During all of said time Lewellen had in his employ as engineer one Bollman, whose duty it was to operate the engine used in propelling the machinery and in moving the same from farm to farm. Late in the evening on July 16, 1919, Lewellen moved his threshing machinery on to the farm of one Downey for the purpose of threshing wheat the following day. No threshing was done on the evening of said date, but the machine was set about 150 yards from the barn, and 250 yards from the house. Under the terms of his employment, “Bollman was required to stay of nights on the premises where the machinery was left, and to keep watch on the machinery to protect it from fire and trespassers.” Lewellen had done the threshing on the Downey farm during the eight years immediately preceding July 16, 1919, and during said years it had been the custom of Bollman to remain overnight and sleep in the Downey barn, though there was room for him to sleep in the Downey residence, and each year he had been invited to sleep there. On the evening of July 16, 1919, at retiring time, Bollman was invited by Downey to sleep in the residence, but he declined to do so on the ground that it was cooler in the barn, and that he would be nearer the machinery, which was the same reason given for sleeping in the barn in the previous years. Accordingly Bollman and other employés of Lewellen, on the night in question, prepared for themselves beds for sleep in the driveway of the Downey barn. Immediately over this driveway was a heavy wagon bed suspended by ropes, one of which suddenly broke during the night, causing the wagon bed to fall upon Bollman, and inflicting upon him such injuries as caused his death on July 24, 1919. Bollman left surviving him as his only dependent his wife, Hannah Bollman, with whom he was living at the time of his death.
It is conceded by the employer that said dependent is entitled to an award of 300 weeks compensation at the rate of $13.20 per week, if the death of said Bollman was due to an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Lewellen.
[1] Upon the foregoing facts, the Industrial Board respectfully submits the following questions for determination: (1) Did the accident causing the injury resulting in the death of Bollman arise out of his employment as engineer by Lewellen? (2) Would a finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... applicable to every condition or state of facts by or under ... which compensation can be allowed or denied to an employe ... Courts are usually controlled, in allowing or denying ... compensation, by the peculiar facts of each case. In Re ... Bollman, 126 N.E. 639, the Appellate Court of Indiana ... "The ... question in each case must be determined from a consideration ... of its own facts and circumstances." ... That ... statement is approved by the same court in a later case ... Empire H. & A. Ins. Co. v. Purcell ... ...
-
Safety Casualty Co. v. Wright
...Kirby Lumber Co. v. Scurlock, 112 Tex. 115, 246 S.W. 76; Watts v. Continental Casualty Co., Tex. Com.App., 18 S.W.2d 591; In re Bollman, 73 Ind.App. 46, 126 N.E. 639; Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co., 263 Pa. 120, 106 A. 196; State ex rel. McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Dist. Court, 141 Minn. 61, 169 ......
-
Harivel v. Hall-Thompson Co.
... ... such an injury received while stopping there arose out of and ... in the course of his employment. We think it did." ... A like ... ruling was made in cases of injury through fires to employees ... in Chilty v. Nelson, 2 B. W. C. 496, and In re ... Bollman, 73 Ind.App. 46, 126 N.E. 639 ... Of the ... two opinions cited by the trial court in support of its ... judgment the facts of the one are not the facts before us, ... and in the other the point decided was quite apart from that ... of this case. The court in Stansberry v. Monitor ... ...
-
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Lawrence
...that the employee when so at rest is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment." In the case of In re Bollman, 73 Ind. App. 46, 126 N. E. 639, the Appellate Court of Indiana construed these facts: The injured employee was employed by the owner of a threshing outfit ......