Sedlock v. The Carr Coal Mining & Manufacturing Company

• Decision Date: 08 July 1916
• Docket Number: 20,756
• Citation: 98 Kan. 680,159 P. 9
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: ANDREW SEDLOCK, Appellee, v. THE CARR COAL MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant

159 P. 9

98 Kan. 680

ANDREW SEDLOCK, Appellee, v. THE CARR COAL MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant

No. 20,756

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 8, 1916

Decided July, 1916.

Appeal from Leavenworth district court; JAMES H. WENDORFF, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

MASTER AND SERVANT--Injury to Servant--Out of and in the Course of Employment--Workmen's Compensation Act. A miner, at the end of his day's work, changed his clothes, and still carrying a miner's lamp, started towards the bottom of the shaft with the intention of ascending to the top of the mine. About two hundred feet from the room where he had been at work and about one-half mile from the bottom of the shaft, his face came in contact with a piece of slate which was hanging from the roof of the mine and one of his eyes was destroyed. Held, that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the workmen's compensation act and that under its provisions he is entitled to compensation for the injury.

A. E. Dempsey, of Leavenworth, for the appellant.

W. W. McCanles, of Kansas City, for the appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

In an action in the district court Andrew Sedlock recovered a judgment for $ 1456 against the Carr Coal Mining & Manufacturing Company as compensation for an injury sustained by him while employed in the defendant's mine. There is no controversy between the parties as to the employment, or the nature and extent of the injury suffered, nor yet as to the amount of the compensation allowed. The question which divides them is whether the accidental injury sustained by the plaintiff arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant within the meaning of the compensation act. It appears that plaintiff had been at work during the day in one of the rooms in the coal mine. About 4 o'clock he quit work, changed his mining clothes for street clothes in the room, then started to walk along the entry in the mine leading towards the shaft for the purpose of ascending to the top of the mine. He wore his miner's lamp, and it was necessary for him to do so in order to find his way to the bottom of the shaft. While he was walking along one of the straits of the mine leading to the shaft, and about 200 feet from his room and one-half mile from the bottom of the shaft, he struck his face against a piece of slate that was hanging from the roof of the mine, and the result was an injury, including the destruction of one of his eyes. At the time of the injury both parties were within the operation of the workmen's compensation law.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under the act. To recover it must appear that the plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. (Laws 1911, ch. 218, § 1.) In an amendment of section 9 of the act it is provided that "the words 'arising out of and in the course of employment' as used in this act, shall not be construed to include injuries to the employee occurring while he is on his way to assume the duties of his employment or after leaving such duties, the proximate cause of which injury is not the employer's negligence." (Laws 1913, ch. 216, § 4.) While the plaintiff had laid aside his pick and other tools, he was still in the mine and subject to the rules prescribed by the defendant when the accident occurred. The relationship of master and servant continued to exist while he was within the control and subject to the orders of the defendant. While the plaintiff was in the mine he was under obligation to observe the rules prescribed by the defendant, and it was incumbent on the defendant to provide him not only a safe place to work in the mine but also a safe passage way out of it as well as the means to carry him safely to the top of the mine. His duties to his employer had not ended until he left the mine, nor had the duties of the defendant towards him ended until that time. It can not be said, therefore, that he was on his way to assume the duties of his employment or had left such duties at the time of his injury. The statutory definition of the words "arising out of and in the course of employment" is substantially the meaning applied to them by the courts which have had them under consideration.

In Milwaukee v. Althoff, 156 Wis. 68, 145 N.W. 238, L. R. A. 1916 A, 327, compensation was allowed to an employee who, after receiving instructions as to where he was to work during the day, proceeded along a street toward the place, and while on the way fell and injured his knee. It was contended that as he was not actually at work and had not in fact reached the place of work, the injury could not be said to have been received in the course of employment or to have arisen out of it. The decision was rested largely on the relationship that existed between the parties when the accident occurred, upon the theory that if the relationship of master and servant existed at the time of the injury he was entitled to the benefits of the act. It was held that if the servant was under the master's control and subject to his direction the accident is to be regarded as having arisen out of and in the course of the employment. Many American and English cases are cited to show that the relation may extend beyond the hours when the servant is carrying on his regular work and in some instances, where he goes to places other than the mine, factory or premises where the actual work was being done.

In De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, (W. Va. 1916) 75 W.Va. 32, 83 S.E. 88, L. R. A. 1916 A, 329, a workman employed by a contractor to do work...