In re Osterbrink
| Decision Date | 27 February 1918 |
| Citation | 229 Mass. 407,118 N.E. 657 |
| Parties | In re OSTERBRINK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary J. Osterbrink and Anna T. Osterbrink for compensation for death of Henry Osterbrink, the employé, opposed by John P. Squire & Co., employer, and the Security Mutual Casualty Company, insurer. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Accident Board, the award confirmed by the superior court, and from its decree the insurer appeals. Affirmed.
Freedom Hutchinson and Putnam B. Smith, both of Boston, for appellant.
Wm. H. Sullivan, of Boston, for appellees.
The deceased was 72 years of age, a faithful worker, a person of exemplary habits, and one who never took a drink of liquor of any kind. He was employed as door tender by the subscriber. It was his duty to stand outside the door to the cooling room and to open that door to the men when any one wanted to pass in or out with a truck. His duties began at 7 o'clock in the morning, and he was expected to tend the door until relieved.
The temperature in the vestibule where he stood was in July the same as out doors, while that in the refrigerating room was at or near freezing. There was a bubble fountain on the floor below from which employés could drink water. There was no provision for drinking water on the floor on which the deceased was stationed. There were two faucets in the cooling room with hose attached; there was not any drinking cup. Some of the men, when working in the refrigerating room, drank from a hose pipe attached to a faucet at the sink or tank, and some used a small tin pail or can hung near the sink by some of the men for this purpose. The deceased at times drank from the rubber pipe and pail as the other men did. The hose pipe was attached to the faucet in order to clean and flush the sink or the products placed therein, as well as adjacent places.
For some time before and on July 7, 1916, the day of the injury, the deceased had kept water for his use in drinking in a bottle, which he placed for cooling on the floor of the cooler under the sink or tank near the wall. During the same time he and other employés, with the knowledge of the foreman, had bottles out of which they drank tea or coffee with their lunch. Bottles of tea or coffee were at times placed by some employés in the cooling room to be kept cool for use with the meals. The practice of putting bottles of tea or coffee in the cooler was known and permitted by the superintendent and management; the practice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Camp Corp. v. Blackmon
... ... This proposition is supported by a number of other cases, including Holland-St. Louis [289 Ala. 643] Sugar Co. v. Shraluka, 64 Ind.App. 545, 116 N.E. 330 (1917); In re Borin, 227 Mass. 452, 116 N.E. 817 (1917); In re Osterbrink, 229 Mass. 407, 118 N.E. 657 (Mass.1918); Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Wis. 600, 162 N.W. 664 (1917); Haller v. City of Lansing, 195 Mich. 753, 162 N.W. 335 (1917); Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Commission, 160 Wis. 633, 152 N.W. 416 (1915); Zabriske v. Eire R. Co., 86 ... ...
-
Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, Civil 4784
... ... L. R. 358, where ... employee, for medicinal purposes, drank from bottle labeled ... wine, found in the employer's carpenter shop, which in ... fact contained a deadly poison resulting in his death, held ... to arise out of his employment ... In ... Re Osterbrink , 229 Mass. 407, 118 N.E. 657, it was ... held that a workman drinking muriatic acid through mistake ... [158 P.2d 518] ... own bottle of drinking water arose out of his employment ... American Steel Foundries v. Czapala , 112 ... Ind.App. 212, 44 N.E.2d 204: In this case ... ...
-
In re Gardner
... ... White v. E. T. Slattery Co., 236 Mass. 28, 34, 127 N. E. 597, 599; Sundine's Case, 218 Mass. 1, 105 N. E. 433, L. R. A. 1916A, 318;Von Ette's Case, 223 Mass. 56, 111 N. E. 696, L. R. A. 1916D, 641; Stacy's Case, 225 Mass. 174, 114 N. E. 206; Osterbrink's Case, 229 Mass. 407, 118 N. E. 657;Hallett's Case, 232 Mass. 49, 121 N. E. 503; Moore v. Manchester Liners, Ltd., [1910] A. C. 498.In Bell's Case, 283 Mass. 46, 130 N. E. 67, it was held that accidents happening to an employee on his way home from work, but not on premises of his employer, as a ... ...
-
In re Sylvia
... ... The case at bar is controlled by the principles of the Watkins Case and of Donovan's Case, 217 Mass. 76, 104 N.E. 431, Ann.Cas.1915C, 778; Sundine's Case, 218 Mass. 1, 105 N.E. 433, L.R.A.1916A, 318; VonEtte's Case, 223 Mass. 56, 111 N.E. 696, L.R.A.1916D, 641; Osterbrink's Case, 229 Mass. 407, 118 N.E. 657, and Hughes's Case, 274 Mass. 540, 175 N.E. 95, and is distinguishable from O'Toole's Case, 229 Mass. 165, 118 N.E. 303;Babineau's Case, 254 Mass. 214, 150 N.E. 4;Savage's Case, 257 Mass. 30, 153 N.E. 257 (where the board found against the employee), and from ... ...