Payne, Director General of Railroads v. Wall

• Decision Date: 16 November 1921
• Docket Number: 11,108
• Citation: 132 N.E. 707,76 Ind.App. 634
• Parties: PAYNE, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS v. WALL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

132 N.E. 707

76 Ind.App. 634

PAYNE, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS v. WALL

No. 11,108

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 16, 1921

From the Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Henry Wall against John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads. From an award for applicant, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Beasley Douthitt, Crawford & Beasley, for appellant.

A. Z Thomas, for appellee.

OPINION

BATMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an award of compensation by the Industrial Board based on a finding which contains the following statement, among others, that appellee "received a personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." Appellant contends that this is the statement of a mere conclusion, and not the finding of an ultimate fact. The decisions on which this contention is based, in so far as they tend to sustain the same, were expressly disapproved by this court in the case of Muncie Foundry, etc., Co. v. Thompson (1919), 70 Ind.App. 157, 123 N.E. 196. The only other questions presented relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the above finding. There is substantial evidence tending strongly to establish the following facts Appellant had in his employ three men, whose duties required them to shovel coal for use in connection with the operation of a railroad. These men were Lape, Dunham and appellee. They did not all work at the same time, but worked successively during the day and night, each working a period of eight hours. On the day appellee received his injuries he had been preceded in this work by Dunham. Appellee took up the work at six o'clock in the morning and worked until about two o'clock in the afternoon. A few minutes before appellee's quitting time, Lape came up to succeed him in the work, and while appellee was still in the car where he had been shoveling coal, a controversy arose between him and Lape with reference to the work which they and Dunham were performing for appellant, which involved a question as to whether each was doing his full share of the same. After appellee had quit shoveling coal and had gone to a nearby desk on the premises to fill out a card pertaining to his work, the controversy was continued, and there developed into a quarrel about the same matter, resulting in anger on the part of both, and the use of provoking language, in which the lie was given and threats were made. During the progress of this quarrel, appellee started to leave, by going down a nearby stairway on the premises, and while so doing was struck with a lump of coal thrown by Lape and severely injured.

This court has held that in the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1915 p. 392, § 8020l et seq. Burns' Supp. 1918), a servant's employment is not limited "to the exact moment when the workman reaches the place where he is to begin his work, or to the moment when he ceases that work. It necessarily includes a reasonable amount of time and space before and after ceasing actual employment, having in mind all the circumstances connected with the accident. Whether an employe, in going to or returning from the place of his employment, is in the line of his employment, is governed and controlled by the particular circumstances...