The San Francisco call and post., 1913-12-29
EMF [OYES LEAVE
BEATEN TRACK
At OWN RISK
Employers Not Responsible
for Injuries Incurred While
Off Job

The industrial accident commission
has furnished the following replies to
quosttins sent to The Call regarding
the application of provisions of the
Workmen's compensate nact:
Q--Suppose my office boy were sent
on an errand and he deliberately went
out of his way to distant part of the
city and was drowned from a wharf;
or suppose the janitor of my building
should be struck by stray bullet
during a street disturbance, or mur-
dered while on his way to work.
Would / be liable under the work
mems compensation, insurance and
safety act2
Aft your errand boy deliberately
went out OF his way to distant part
or the city and was drowned from a
wharf you would not be held respon-
sible. 1t was not part of the lads
duty to go to that part of the city.
and. consequently, the law frees you
from all responsibility in connection
with his death.
If your janitor is struck by a stray
bullet during street disturbance you
are not held responsible for his death.
The accident did not arise out of his
employment and was not incurred as
the result of the performance OF his
duties
NOT LIABLE "GOING TO WORK.
If your janitor is killed by an
enemy on his way to work you are
not held responsible. In fact, an en-
ployer is not held responsible for any
accident that may occur to his en-
ployes while they are going to or
from their work.
Of I employ a firm of painting
contractors to paint my dwelling
would it be incumbent upon mo
personally to inspect his liability
insurance policy to satisfy myself
that he was covered by insurance
against accidents? C. C.
Ayes. 1t would be to your advan-
tage to inquire carefully regarding
whether the contractors doing
piece or work for you are finan-
cially responsible or have them
selves covered by a satisfactory
workmen's compensation insurance
policy. If the firm of painting con-
tractors referred to were not re-
sponsible financially and had no
compensation policy covering in
juries to their workmen you could
be held liable for those working
men
PARTNER NOT EMPLOYER
Q.-Would three partners working to-
gether have to compensate one of
the other partners in event of in
jury?
A.-No. The partners are employers
and are not looked upon as being
employees.
"a grocer's delivery boy, in dis
mounting from delivery vehicle to
deliver goods to customer. had
clothes catch, throwing him to side
walk, sustaining injuries. To what
extent is his employer liable?
A.--The grocer is held liable for the
injury
GA" enters into contract with .B."
b. hires &C. at daily wage &c"
is hurt in performance of duty "B"
is irresponsible financially. Does
the liability revert to "A?
Ayes. The liability reverts to "A"
IL "B" is financially irresponsible.
WHAT casual EMPLOYE" is
Q.-What is a casual employee? Would
gardener. who regularly keeps my
lawn in order; a chimney sweep,
stint by a hardware firm to clean a
chimney, or a tramp employed for
an hour to split wod, come under
this designation?
A casual employee is one whose
employment is of a casual nature
usual course Of the trade, business,
profession or occupation of his en-
ployer. Your gardener. who comes
in regularly to keep your lawn in
order. is not a casual employee.
The chimney sweep sent by a hard
ware firm to clean your chimney is
a casual employee
tramp employed by the hour to split
wod is casual employee.
The law does not hold the employer
responsible to compensate employees
who come under the classification,
casual employee" 1t is possible for
the casual employee to sue the en-
ployer for damages for any accidtnt
which might arise out of his en-
ployment. His suit would have to
be brought under another law,
which is commonly known as the
Employers liability law" (Chap.
399, Laws OF 1919
1t is for the purpose of protecting
themselves against such suits that
some employers intend to file and
others are fling, with the Industrial
accident board, an acceptance of the
workmen's compensation, insurance
and safety act for their casual en-
ployes. This absolutely protects the
employer. just as the employer is
protected by the terms of the above
injuries which may happen to his reg
ular employees.