Case ID: mass_257/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Malcolm C. Hatch’s (dependent’s) Case.
    Suffolk.
    November 19, 1926.
    November 22, 1926.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Crosby, Pierce, & Sanderson, JJ.
    
      Workmen’s Compensation Act, Injuries to which act applies.
    A decision by the Industrial Accident Board dismissing a claim under the workmen’s compensation act by an employee who was engaged principally in doing repair work on machines in various parts of the State, his travelling expenses being paid by his employer, and who was being taken by a friend in his automobile from doing such repair work when, by reason of some accident on the highway, he received fatal injuries, was affirmed, following Hewitt’s Case, 225 Mass. 1.
    Certification, under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, of a decision by the Industrial Accident Board dismissing a claim by a dependent of an employee of Addressograph Company for injuries resulting in his death.
    In the Superior Court, by order of Cox, J., a decree was entered dismissing the claim. The claimant appealed.
    
      M. Rosenthal, (W. R. Goodland with him,) for the claimant.
    
      W. I. Badger, for the insurer.
   By the Court.

The deceased employee was engaged principally in doing repair work on machines in various parts of the State, his travelling expenses being paid by bis insured employer. He was being taken by a friend in his automobile from doing such repair work when by reason of some accident on the highway he received fatal injuries.

The Industrial Accident Board, affirming and adopting the decision of the single member, rightly held on the governing authority of Hewitt’s Case, 225 Mass. 1, that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation under the workmen’s compensation act.

Decree affirmed.