Norwich bulletin., 1915-09-02

+ 49, III t1lC pdTL OF. the injured ser
. want or his fellows" are held not I
come within the act" In the pres
ent instance there is no history of an,
injury the result of "a spirit of play
on the claimants part whatever; il
; -: ne Is passive quality as far a!
MS injury Is Concerned.
feel constrained to agree with tn,
respondent in his claim that the in.
Ference from Chief Justice Riggs re.
marks In the McNicol case is that i
an injury is received as the result OF
rousn sport or horse play, the injury
cannot be said to have arisen out OF
! the employment" but in the present
instance, the injury occurred to the
claim ant neither as the result OF
rough sport or horse play.
New Jersey Case Applies.
The most important case and which
IS quite recent, bearing upon the case
before US at this time and one to
consideration, is that of HUXLEY US.
Noorbrugger, a case decided by the
supreme Court of New Jersey. and
reported in SO Atlantic, 70, anil / would
consider that that decision is a better
barometer Of the trend of opinion as
20 the Interpretation of this particular
feature of the compensation laws. In
the case above mentioned the facts
were as follows:
AT five o'clock in the afternoon the
NNNONi0Chb Qull WOTk ana went tn his
employers shop, and, while on his wav
10 tho bin for the fittings to be used
on the job in which he was engaged, a
Fellow workman. in a spirit Of play.
whom the deceased was passing
swung his arm around, either to
knock, off the decedent's hat or to
strike him, whereupon the decedent.
IN lodging the attack. slipped on the
descending concrete floor, fell. and
sustained injuries which caused his
The judge who wrote the opinion
held that this death could have been
said to have arisen out of the EN-
ployment, and the main part OF his
reasoning is contained in the follow |
Ing paragraph:
IN the case under consideration, it
appears that the prosecutor employed |
young men and boys. It is but natural
10 expect them to deport Themselves
IS young men and boys, replete with
the activities of life and health. For
workmen of that age or even of ma
diversion from work, to toke with or
play prank upon a fellow workman.
8 a matter of common knowledge to
everyone who employs labor At any
ate II cannon be said that the attack
made upon the decedent was so dis
connected from the decedent's ennIoy-
nent as to take it out of the class of
'isks reasonably incident to the en-
oloyment of labor"
IN the present case il there vera
my indications of a vicious attack
lpon the employe ~ fellow ennIova
here might be some grounds for taL
ng a different view Of the matter. as
vicious act would hardly be an act
when an employe is taxi
N into an employment
When No Fault of Injured One.
IN cases where fellow employees of
nature years engage in horse plav or
lcious attacks or totious or Grim
Iai acts or FOOLISH acts. playing them
ne upon another, or where young peo-
re are injured as a result of their
wn acts of foolishness or pIayfulness
acre Is unquestianably no recovery 3
Ut IN the case of an employee being {
iJured who is attending to his t
~ through no fault of his own, l
no this Injury occurs as a result of !
PLAYFUL act of young people who are r
nPfoyed under circumstances in q
nich one would naturally expece
'ohns to occur and in which play-
lness would be bound to occur with {
le oVerseer Of the room absent. we
ouid naturally look upon such
tuauon aS-an incident to employment
"a IT woulA be considered risk
nich the employer might contempIate
10 an injury occurring under such
circumstances would undoubtedIv he
'nsidered as one arising cont 81, +be =.
nployment
None of the cases cited by the re- =,
'ondent exactly fit the case which h
e nave before us for consideration: p
;tf:. a case where an employee, a
lthout fault of his own and en1a oaj =,
no way in the playfulness which re- n
It's IN mis- injury meets with an acct N
mt which is clearly the result of n
ayfulness on the part of young peo-
g we would no more expect a
ia iIdre LUZ ,t q, employees, practically
anstain from fooling or PLAYFUL
ss OF some character, than we u,
una scnool-room to conduct itself Al
IN decorum in the absence of the y.
acner: AS matter Of fact quite a,
opposite is expected and is the y"
lie and is a condition, which we
'uld contemplate under the circumo
lnces. The actions of young peo-
, IN tnese times do not differ ma
iaIiy from those of Biblical DAYS
d they probably never will. and n 81
ostantiate this view we have sin1niy at
rerer to the quotation from the VI
'iptures as found in 1 CorinthianS aV
h Chapter and 18th verse: -
", wnen was child, I spoke as a
10, l understood as a child, II
'usht as child; but when I be- B.
ngs" iiuiSh
Chief Justices Opinion. -
70 quote from Chief Justice Rupg sc
the AIcNicol case: IF the ini1rY "
be seen and TO bsxe
n contemplated by reasonabIe
son familiar with the whole situae
then it arises ont ~
the employment
q not to have been foreseen or exN Be-,
ted, but after the event II rnuet
lear to have had its origin in the
connected with the employment
TO have flowed from that source as
atlonal consequence" FL
uch an injury as that received nv
claimant in the present case Is nm. M
stlonably one which we wouId
( upon as rational conseouenca1 j
ne conditions under which he was WI
king at the time and it is ono S
could have been conternpIateS
reasonable person familiar with
whole situation" VAN Not
dmlttinE as we must that in caS. ST.
ne employment Of young people in =
Lrge factory and without anv i'm =
late supervision over them end Ser
wing the tendency of young people F
1du!e in playfulness, such a condi1 5
or circumstances Is bound to pro I;
playfulness on ths part of some HOl
loyes, and admitting that this is 4
niger incident to the empioynoenf | IT,
II must be admitted that fbo - -