Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (Continued). 8. FINDING OF COMMISSION—EVIDENCE-AFFIRMANCE OF AWARD.-An

award of the Industrial Accident Commission must be affirmed where there is evidence sustaining the finding that the claim of the applicant is covered by the policy of insurance. (Royal Indemnity Co. v.

Industrial Acc. Com., 90.) 9. FILING OF APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION-INSUFFICIENT AUTHORITY

—UNAUTHENTICATED LETTER.—An unauthenticated letter written by the father of an employee killed in the course of his employment to a third person not related to the parties, purporting to authorize the latter to apply for adjustment of the claim for compensation to the Industrial Accident Commission, is not sufficient legal authority to initiate the proceedings. (Western Ind. Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Com., 104.) 10. DEPENDENCY OF APPLICANT — UNWARRANTED FINDING — HEARSAY

EVIDENCE.—A finding of the Industrial Accident Commission that a deceased son contributed to his father's support by sending money to him in a foreign country is unwarranted where the finding is based solely upon the testimony of the person with whom the deceased had deposited money that. from time to time the deceased requested an advancement of money, saying that he wanted it to

send home. (Id.) 11. REIMBURSEMENT FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES ABSENCE OF APPLICAWORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (Continued).

TION-COMMISSION WITHOUT JURISDICTION.-The Industrial Accident Commission, in the absence of an application for reimbursement, has no jurisdiction to make an allowance to a third person for

money paid for burial expenses of a deceased employee. (Id.) 12. INJURY TO PAINTER—ADMEASUREMENT OF COMPENSATION.-Under

subdivision 2, section 17, of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Stats. 1913, p. 289), providing that if the injured employee had not worked in such employment during substantially the whole of the immediately preceding year, his average annual earnings shall consist of three hundred times the average daily earnings which an employee of the same class working substantially the whole of such immediately preceding year in the same or a similar kind of employ. ment, in the same or a neighboring place, earned during the days when so employed, an award of compensation made to a painter employed to work for $2.50 per day, for injuries received two days after he was employed, on a basis of $4.50 per day, is not open to review, where there was evidence that $4.50 was the standard wage scale for painters in that locality. (Hickox v. Industrial Acc. Com.,

403.) 13. INJURY TO EYE OF EMPLOYEE OF CHEMICAL COMPANY-LACK OF

WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.—Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Industrial Accident Commission cannot be said to have acted beyond and in excess of its jurisdiction in making an award in faror

of an employee of an electro-chemical company for any injury to his eye from getting caustic therein because he did not wear glasses at the time of the accident, as required by the company's rules, and was thus guilty of willful misconduct, where it was shown by the evidence that the caustic was spilled on the employee's back while he was stooping, and only got into his eye from an attempt to pull his shirt over his head, and that the injury would have probably occurred whether he had on his glasses or not. (Great W. E. Co. v. Indus

trial Acc. Com., 450.) 14. INJURIES TO TEAMSTER EMPLOYED IN MUNICIPAL WOODYARD-REMOV

ING HOUSEHOLD GOODS OF INDIGENT FAMILY-RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.-A municipal corporation is liable under the Workmen's Com'pensation Act for injuries received by a teamster employed in the municipal woodyard while engaged under the direction of the superintendent of the yard in removing the household goods of an indi. gent family, where it was shown that the purpose of the woodyard was to provide employment for indigent families and the powers and duties of the superintendent in reference to the uses which were to be made of services of indigent teamsters broader than that of merely directing the delivery of wood. (Oakland.v. Industrial Acc.

Com., 484.) 15. CANCER RESULTING FROM FALL-FINDING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.—

In this proceeding to review an award of compensation for a sarcoma or cancer alleged to have resulted from a fall while engaged as a workman in a sugar plant, it is held that the finding of the commission is supported by the evidence. (Santa Ana Sugar Co. v. Indus

trial Acc. Com., 652.) 16. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-CODE PROVISION APPLICABLE.—The principle

behind the rule declared in section 2061, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure that juries are to be instructed that they are not bound to decide in conformity with the declarations of any number of witnesses, which do not produce conviction in their minds, against a less number satisfying their minds, operates as strongly upon the Industrial Accident Commission as instructions under it do upon

juries. (Id.) 17. TRAVELING EMPLOYEE OF IRON WORKS—RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an employee of an iron works, whose duties were to assist in the manufacture and assembling of machinery, and who, whenever his employer secured a contract for the installation of machinery in any particular place, was required to go to that place for that purpose, was a “traveling employce," and entitled to compensation for injuries sustained while journeying in an automobile to a place where he had been directed to go by his employer to install certain machinery. (London etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 681.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (Continued). 18. ENACTMENT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-LAW GOVERNING

PRIOR INJURIES.—The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913, in view of the saving clause therein declaring that the compensation provisions of the act should not apply to any injury sustained prior to the taking effect thereof, continued in force existing laws as to injuries sustained prior to such time. (Reynolds v. E. Clemens

Horst Co., 711.) 19. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT ACCIDENT ARISING OUT OF EMPLOY

MENT.—Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the accidents arising out of the employment of the person injured are those in which it is possible to trace the injury to the nature of the employee's work or to the risks to which the employer's business exposes the employee. The accident must be one resulting from a risk neces. sarily incident to the employment. It arises out of the occupation when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the servant works and the resulting injury. It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence. (Balboa

A. P. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 793.) 20. INJURY TO MOVING PICTURE ACTOR IN PUBLIC STREET — ACCIDENT

NOT ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT.—An injury received by an actor employed by a moving picture company, while standing in a public street engaged in conversation with two other employees of the company about private and social matters, from being struck by an automobile of a director of the company, is not an injury arising out of his employment, although the company's plant occupied the four corners of the street intersection and he was then waiting to be called for service. (Id.)

WRIT OF REVIEW. 1. REMEDY BY APPEAL.—The writ of review does not lie when the peti.

tioner has a right of appeal from the order which he seeks to have

reviewed. (Cline v. Superior Court, 150.) 2. EXECUTION-SALE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT INDEMNITY BOND-ORDER

UPON Show CAUSE PROCEEDINGS REMEDY BY APPEAL. Where a sheriff refuses to make a sale of property under execution until fur. nished with an indemnity bond by reason of the service upon him of a written claim under section 689 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he is thereafter ordered upon show cause proceedings to make the sale without the bond, his remedy is by appeal from the order, and not by writ of review, the order having, as to him, the effect of a judgment. (Id.)

See Estates of Deceased Persons, 4.

L555:5

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »