Kokomo Steel & Wire Co. v. Irick

• Decision Date: 19 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 11787.,11787.
• Citation: 80 Ind.App. 610,141 N.E. 796
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: KOKOMO STEEL & WIRE CO. v. IRICK.

80 Ind.App. 610

141 N.E. 796

KOKOMO STEEL & WIRE CO.

v.IRICK.

No. 11787.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Dec. 19, 1923.

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Lee Irick for compensation for injuries, opposed by the Kokomo Steel & Wire Company, employer. From an award of the Industrial Board for claimant, the employer appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph W. Hutchinson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

NICHOLS, J.

Appeal from an award of the Industrial Board based on a finding that on March 2, 1923, appellee was in the employment of appellant at an average weekly wage of not less than $24; that on said day he received a personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which injury resulted in the permanent loss of the entire vision of his left eye. The Board, by a majority of its members, awarded compensation for 150 weeks at the rate of $13.20 per week.

[1] The question which we have to consider is as to whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. It appears by the evidence, which is substantially uncontradicted, that appellee had gone into the nail department of appellant's factory on an errand in the course of his employment, and while standing there he was approached by a coemployee with whom he had theretofore engaged in frolicsome play. There was evidence of posted rules in the factory buildings forbidding such conduct, but there was also evidence of its repeated violation. There is some uncertainty as to which was the aggressor at this time; but, in an attempt to pull appellee's cap down over his face, the coemployee injured appellee's eye, which injury resulted in the loss of the sight, and of the removal of the eyeball. There was no quarrel between the parties. They were good friends, and the act was simply a sportive one. There must be a causal connection between appellee's employment and the act resulting in the injury, or there can be no compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1915, c. 106, as amended). The fact that appellee's duties required him to go to the nail department of appellant's factory does not of itself show such connection. It must appear that the nature of his employment subjected him to the danger and he was thereby injured. Bachman v. Waterman, 68 Ind. App. 580, 121 N. E. 8;United Paperboard Co. v. Lewis, 65 Ind. App. 356, 361, 117 N. E. 276;...