Murphy's Case (Mass. S. J. C.)....
Murray v. Union Ry. Co. of New York City (N. Y. S. C.).
National Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Padgett (U. S. C. C. A.).
New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. et al. v. Harris (U. S. S. C.)....
Newport Hydrocarbon Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et
al. (Wis. S. C.).
Perdew v. Nufer Cedar Co. (Mich. S. C.).........
Peterson v. Fisher Body Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.).
Philps v. Guy Drilling Co. (La. S. C.).......
Piske v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co. (La. S. C.)..........
Poccardi, Royal Consul, v. Ott, Compensation Com'r (W. Va. S.
Prendergast v. Berrian Bros. et al. (N. Y. S. C.).
Pullman Co. v. Ransaw et al. (Tex. C. C. A.)
Rask v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Kan. S. C.).
Raynes v. Staats-Raynes Co. (Ind. A. C.).
Roebling's Sons Co, John A., et al. v. Industrial Accident Commis
sion et al. (Cal. D. C. A.).......
Roma v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (Ohio S. C.)...
Rosedale Cemetery Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Commission of Cali
fornia et al. (Cal. D. C. A.)...
Rowe v. Colorado & S. R. Co. et al. (Tex. C. C. A.).
Ruda v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill. S. C.)..
Schlehuber v. American Express Co. (Mass. S. J. C.).
Schlenker v. Garford Motor Truck Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y. S. C.)............. 374 Scribner's Case (Mass. S. J. C.)..
Scott v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S. C. S. C.)..
Scribner's Case (Mass. S. J. C.)...
Self-Insurers' Ass'n et al. v. State Industrial Commission. (N. Y. C A.)
Shell Co. of California v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal. D. C. A.)
Siglin et al. v. Armour & Co. (Pa. S. C.).
Slinger v. Muskegon Motor Specialties Co. (Mich. S. C.)
Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co. et al. (N. Y. C. A.).
Standard Oil Co. of New York, In re (N. Y. S. C.)...
Southern Surety Co. et al. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 1905, et al. (Tex. C. C. A.).
Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. et al. v. Vickstrom et al.
C. C. A.)
Splitdorf Electrical Co. v. King et al. (N. J. S. C.).
Stacks v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Colo. S. C.)..
Standard Cabinet Mfg. Co. v. Iliff (Ind. A. C.)..........
State v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. of Washington (Wash. S. C.).. State ex rel. Bykle v. District Court of Watonwan County et al. (Minn. S. C.).....
State ex rel. Common School Dist. No. 1 in Itasca County v. District Court of Itasca County (Minn. S. C.)...
State ex rel. H. S. Johnson Sash & Door Co. v. District Court, Hennepin County, et al. (Minn. S. C.).....
State ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. District Court of Hennepin County et al. (Minn. S. C.)..
State ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. District Court, Rice County, et al. (Minn. S. C.)....
State Industrial Commission, Appeal of (N. Y. C. A.).
State Industrial Commission, Appeal of (N. Y. C. A.).
State Industrial Commission, Appeal of (N. Y. C. A.)
State Industrial Commission, Appeal of (N. Y. C. A.)
State Industrial Com'n, In re (N. Y. C. A.)
State Industrial Commission, In re (N. Y. C. A.)
State Industrial Commission, In re (N. Y. C. A.)
Stillwagon et al. v. Callan Bros., Inc., et al. (N. Y. S. C.).
Stuart v. Kansas City (Kan. S. C.)......
Car Ferry Co. (Mich. S. C.)... 658
Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al. v. Archer et al. (Tex. C C. A.).
Thaxter v. Finn, Sheriff (Cal. S. C.).
Thornton v. Grand Trunk-Milwaukee
Travelers' Ins. Co., In re (Mass. S. J. C.)..
Travelers' Ins. Co., In re (N. Y. S. C.).
Travelers' Ins. Co., In re (N. Y. S. C.)
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Louis Padula Co., Inc. (N. Y. S. C.).
Tsangournos et al. v. Smith et al. (N. Y. S. Č.).
Twonko v. Rome Brass & Copper Co. et al. (N. Y. S. C.).
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Taylor (Md. C. A.)
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Holtz (Ind. A. C.)
Vandalia R. Co. v. Kendall (Ind. A. C.)
Van Simaeys v. George R. Cook Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.)...
Vasey et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al.
Vereeke v. City of Grand Rapids (Mich. S. C.)..
Walker v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal. S. C.)
Walsh v. River Spinning Co. (R. I. S. C.).....
Waterman Lumber Co. v. Beatty (Tex. C. C. A.)
Welden v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation (Wash. S. C.).
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hickman (U. S. C. C. A.)
White v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis. S. C.)
Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
Wichita Falls Motor Co. v. Meade (Tex. C. C. A.)
Wilson v. Phoenix Furniture Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.).
Woodhall v. Irwin et al. (Mich. S. C.).
Workmen's Compensation Fund, In re (N. Y. C. A.)
Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co. (Wyo. S. C.)
Zoulalian v. New England Sanatorium & Benevolent Ass'n:
From July to December, 1918, inclusive.
Our subscribers will note the change in the plan of the index. The head-
ings and system are familiar to all attorneys and adjusters and we belive that
it will be found to be more practical. The headings are simple, concise and laid
out on a well-known plan.
(A) NATURE AND GROUNDS OF MASTER'S LIABILITY.
NATURE AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.
§ 346.
Servant required to ride on passenger and freight trains and to mount them
while in motion, assumes all ordinary risks of employment, but he does
not assume extraordinary risks and hazards, the result of negligence
on part of railway company or those for whom it becomes responsible-
has right to assume that employer will not subject him to such extra-
ordinary risks and hazards. Dumphy v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. (W. Va.). 180
Switchman with 11 years' experience, familiar with the yards where he
worked, knowing the location of guard rail and that cars had been
kicked toward him at the rate of 15 miles an hour, and who stepped
between rail and guard rail, was caught and injured, assumed the risk
Gaddy v. North Carolina R. Co. (N. U.)....
Railway company is negligent within meaning of act when its engineer re-
fuses or neglects to obey order of superior officer to stop or slow down at
particular point and pick up employee. Dumphy v. Norfolk & W. Ry.
Co. (W. Va.) ...
Common-law theory allowing servant to recover for personal injury, and his
administrator to recover for death where master was negligent, is super-
seded by Workmen's Compensation Act. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollen-
bach (Ky.)
Award under compensation law is not made on theory that a tort has been
committed, but upon theory that statute giving commission power to
make award is read into and becomes part of contract of employment.
Doey v. Clarence P. Howland Co., Inc.. et al-Appeal of State Industrial
Commission (N. Y.)
§ 347. CONTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES.
The act is not invalid as making employee, without his consent, a party in a
contract entered into by employer with insurance company-the act is
not beyond legislative authority as prescription established in interest of
foreign insurance companies, as the function of the notice is not to cut
off
a right of action by prescription, but to take employment contract
from under operation of act-power of Legislature to provide that
employee shall have no right of action unless he gives employer notice of
injury within reasonable time cannot be doubted-not unconstitutional
because taking away employee's right of action under general law of
torts. Boyer v. Crescent Paper Box Factory, Inc. (La.)..
The act is not invalid in that it fails to provide for payment of compensation
to injured servants, though act contains no insurance feature it substitutes
another scheme to accomplish same purpose-not invalid as making it
more difficult for workmen to elect to accept its provisions and to waive
them, once election is made, then it is for the employer-or as making no
provision respecting workmen under age. Johnston v. Kennecott Copper
Corp. (U. S.)..
The act is not violative of equal protection of the laws clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment as class legislation; mining being the one great
industry of the territory. Johnston v. Kennecott Copper Corp. (U. S.)..
The act is not violative of Organic Act of Alaska inhibiting Legislature from
granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or ex-
clusive privilege or franchise. Johnston v. Kennecott Copper Corp. (U. S..
Legislature has power to limit review of awards of compensation and to make
them conclusive. Thaxter v. Finn, Sheriff (Cal.)..
The act as amended does not violate amendment to Const. art 10, Sec. 4,
providing compensation "to each person injured," in that no compensa-
tion is allowed for first ten days of disability-act does not deny right
of employee to be represented by counsel in view of section 25. relating
to fees of attorneys-act is not unconstitutional in that provision that
children over age of 16 shall not be considered dependents unless in-
capacitated-it is not unconstitutional in that nonresident alien family
of deceased employee shall receive only 33 per cent of amount allowed
to residents of state. Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co. (Wyo.).... 715
Congress, in the exercise of its power over interstate commerce, and subject
to the limitations prescribed in the Constitution, may regulate those
relations of common carriers by railroad and their employees which have
a substantial connection with interstate commerce, and while both car-
rier and employee are engaged therein. Second Employers' Liability
Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44.
Eskelsen v. Union Pacific R. Co. (Neb.)....
The act in taking away existing rights of action of employee and extending
employer's liabilities and limiting amount of recovery is legitimate ex-
ercise of police power. Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial
Board et al. (Ill.)...
& 348. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF STATUTES IN GENERAL.
The act is highly remedial and must be liberally construed. Industrial Com-
mission of Colorado et al. v. Johnson (Col.)..
It must be presumed that legislature had in view definition of "willful" as
found in Pen. Code, Sec. 7., being a purpose to do and act without neces-
sarily intending to violate a law or injure another. Bay Shore Laundry
Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al. (Cal.).......
Act should be liberally construed with view to effectuating intention of its
framers. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach (Ky.)...
Geg. St. 1915, Sections 8492-8495, do not enlarge a defendant railroad's lia-
bility over that created by Employers' Liability Act April 22, 1908,
c. 194, 35 Stat. 65 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, Sections 8657-8665. Rask v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. (Kan.).....
Federal Employers' Liability Act furnishes exclusive remedy in all cases fall-
ing within its provisions. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Branson (Md.)..
In action under federal Employers' Liability Act, measure of damages is to be
determined according to provisions of act itself and general common law
as administered by federal courts, unaffected by state legislation and
decisions of state courts. Laughlin v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (Mo.). 802
Act prescribing liability of employers for compensation, plainly expressed the
intention to limit rights and remedies and to exclude other rights; to
"prescribe" meaning to lay down authoritatively as a guide or rule of
action. Philps v. Guy Drilling Co. (La.)
The Alaska Act supersedes the common law and no action can be brought
for injuries in any court, federal or otherwise, outside the territory of
Alaska. Martin v. Kennecott Copper Corporation (U. S.).
867
§ 349. RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES.
Scalping employee which occurred while performing services arising out of
employment prior to amendment of statute, entitles him to damages and
not compensation under the act. Boyer v. Crescent Paper Box Factory,
Inc. (La.)
Proceedings for compensation to coal passer on Great Lakes interstate ferry
brought in state court before amendment of judiciary act to save com-
plainants all rights and remedies under Workmen's Compensation Law
of any state was subject to admiralty laws and jurisdiction was in
federal District Court since statute could not be given retroactive effect.
Thornton v. Grand Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Co. (Mich.)....
ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF STATUTE, AND ELECTION OF
REMEDIES.
§ 351.
RIGHT TO ELECT, AND EFFECT OF ELECTION IN GENERAL.
Section 53 requiring that employers shall insure payment of compensation in
one of three ways is compulsory on all employers. Industrial Commission
of Utah v. Daly Mining Co. (Utah).
Employer, being free to come under Act or stay out, may accept it as to
one or more of several lines of business in which he is engaged. Ander-
son v. McVannel et al. (Mich)..
Where there was no written agreement or notice between employer and em-
ployee that act should not apply to employment, accident occurring 30
days after contract is not excluded. Philps v. Guy Drilling Co. (La.).. 783
WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF EM-
PLOYER.
In action under federal Employers' Liability Act. fellow-servant doctrine
has no application. Rockwell v. Hustis-Holden v. Same (N. H.).
Whether company was negligent in leaving car standing on track was ques-
tion for jury. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. McGuffey (U. S.)....
In action under Federal Employer's Liability Act, evidence as to defendants'
negligence held to make question for the jury-railroad bound to inspect
cars of another railroad used on its own road. Rowe v. Colorado & S.
R. Co. et al. (Tex.)....
§ 353. - INJURIES NOT PROVIDED FOR IN COMPENSATION ACT.
Engineer in charge of caterpillar engine would be "operating farm machine."
but deceased. who was assisting by means of lantern in harrowing and
had nothing to do with engine at time of accident, would not. Mary-
land Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.).... 616
§ 354. RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THIRD PERSON.
As the Texas Act was inapplicable to stevedore's claim against vessel and as
he asserted no claim against insurer or its agents, payment from insurer
did not bar claim against vessel, but amounted at most to a pro tanto
satisfaction. The Emilia S. De Perez (U. S.)..
|