Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-11-20
RULING MADE in
COMPENSATION
Important Questions Passed
Upon by Commissioner Scott
in Western Case

Important rulings in regard to con-
tracts and compensation are made by
Commissioner John A. Scott and con-
Cured in by other members of the
State Compensation Board in a de-
cision- given unfolding the referee in
the compensation claim of Polly Will
liams Latrobe, VS.. Tempest Brick Co..
Mckeesport 1t was claimed that the
| employe reported for work while in
| toxicated. but the opinion fails to find
that intoxication was the 'proXimate
cause of his DEATH"
Compensation is no part of the
consideration forming the basis of the
! original contract of employment be-
tween the parties but only an agreed
sum based, it is true, on q proportion
of the wages stipulated in the con-
tract of hiring and which is accepted
in lieu of unliquidated damages form
erly possible to be recovered in an
other and distinct form of action"
says the opinion. THE clear intent of
the Legislature was to abolish the old
law with it's remedies and defenses as
it existed before the enactment of the
GULL HlpeilSdllOn ACT OIL Ito ana 10 SuD-
stitute therefore a new system where
in fault or negligence by either en-
ployer or employe shall have no place.
The old defenses and rules laid
down by the courts and based on neg
ligence can only apply to the inter-
probation and enforcement of the
main contract of hiring and not the
contract for compensation for injury
or death. The only defense recognized
by article III is when injury or death
be Intentionally self-infiicted, with the
burden of proof on the one pleading
such defense. The intent of the Leg
islature to exclude intoXication or
reckless indifference to danger as de-
Tense are specifically mentioned as
available under article IL which still
recognizes the common law basis, as
ntra-distinguished from the
thought involved in article III.
1T has been urged that intoXication,
when it results in injury or death, is
tantamount to a self-inflicted injury.
We do not think that this was intend
ed by the Legislature, especially not
under the facts developed in this
case"
In the case of Wesley Colegrove VS..
Charles Seyler both of Port Allie
gany, Commissioner James w. Leech
finds that there was sufficient testi- !
mony that Colegrove was injured, |
while engaged in furthering the inter-
eSIS OF the de1endant, ana that the
said injury necessitated an operation
for appendicitis"
The board in the case of Karpati VS..
the Cambria Steel company, refuses to
award compensation to the widow of
man killed in the service of the COM |
pany who did not contribute to the |
support of his wife. 1t was shown |
that the dead man had gone to Johns |
town to work, leaving his wife in New
York, but that he did not send for her |
or contribute any of his wages for her |
support. The facts that he did not
establish a home and that the wife |
while enjoying legal rights to support
did not take enough interest to assert |
them are held to show that the wo-
man was not dependent.
The board has also upheld the ref
cree in granting compensation to |
Clara l.. Murray, whose husband died |
following an injury in falling from a
wagon while employed by Cunning
ham & Murray, Philadelphia. 1t was
found that the man was injured in
attempting to get off a wagon and that
the injury accelerated a pre-eXisting
condition of nephritis and was q con-
tributary cause of his DEATH" 1t is
held that there was not enough in the
plea that the man was intoxicated to
warrant a finding of fact by the
referee.