The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-18
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

.Ordingly dismissed a suit brouVht De-
cause Of mental anguish over the theft OF
the body OF the plaintiffs brother. Thu
court said:
THE complaint does not allege any 4
by the defendant corporation to
guard and protect the graves in its
the statute under viii h the
defendant is Incorporated and permitted
TO hold such lands and sell plots there
r. m imposes no such duty, and the
plaintiffs cause OF action. II any. must
rest uron some implied duty Of any
corporation selling lots for burial pur-
poses to protect from theft the graves
placed therein. The theft OF n dead
body Is an unusual occurrence. Such a
duty would involve a large expenditure
OF money in order TO secure the graves
from m iestation by outsiders. without
contract obligation to protect these
graves and without statutory duty 80 to
do II ~ difficult to conceive any reason
able grounds from which such n duty
an he implied. We are referred to no
authority and are able to hnd none IN
whlch such a duty has been declared to
exist. and in our opinion so to hold would
east an unrea sonable burden upon such
corporations entirely out OF proportion
to any c-mpensation that the, would be
able to charge for the sale ~ burial
plots
THE Supreme judicial Court OF Massa-
chuset;s has held In the case of in 70
Van Elite that the widow OF an employees
who Wen, To the roof OF the building
where he was employed to get air be
caus. the night was warm and fell OF
and was killed IL entitled to an award
under the workm.ns compensation act
because the decedent at the time or his
death was In the course Of his employ
ment. The court said
"The question whether the injury arose
out OF and in the course OF the employ
ment Is one Of some difficulty: a ma
jofity OF the court are unable TO say mat
the finding OF the hoard was wrong. The
accident happened upon the premises OF
the employer. and We think. In view OF
the practice. witch might have been cun
to exist under which the men went upon
the roof for fresh air. that the act Of the
deceased In COINS there on n warm night
WAS not necessarily outside his employ
ment. but could have been ouni To he
Incidental thereto. An injury Ia "A work
man may arise out Of and In the course
of his employ ment even II he is not ac-
tuallN working at the time. The
fac, that the unprotected place upon the
roof where IL is found the deceased fell
of H. t~enty-three feet away from th-
foot of the stairway In not decisive
against the claimant lie could have
been found to he rightfully upon the rouf
and was not bound to remain a. the foot
of the stairs or on any particular part
OF the roof We cannot saw a. matter
Of law tina, the board WAS not warranted
in finding that the injury arose out az
and In the course OF the employment
even II the deceased fell from the roof
at a place ~tweuty-thi.- feet from the
stairway. We cannot SAY that the board
has drawn infefrnces when no reason
abb. man could draw. and for that =
son We canno set aside its findings.
! l'pon principle. aside from authority. the
findings Of the Industrial Accident Board
were warranted. the conclusion which We
have reached IL sbundantiy supported by
the decisions Of the English courts"
\ A novel deter m,nation under a work
mans compensation law was made by
the Supreme Court OF Errors OF Connec-
iicut In I.arke vs.. John Hancock Mutual
Life Insurance Company In which II APP
peared that an employee OF an !nsuranc"
company soliciting Insurance. and collect
ing premiums was compelled to take long
rides regardless of weather conditions
and on one of his rides was frostbitt-n.
The frost bite produced a lesion from
which e~rysipelas developed and from
! which he died. The court held that the
| frost bite was contracted while the en-
ployee was necessarily exposed in prose-
cutting his employers business and that
his wife was entitled to an award. The
, court said:
Unless the conditions under which
I.arke pursued his employment exposed
him TO the danger OF frost bite. and th'~
exposure WAS peculiar to MS employ
ment and not shared nv the ordinary
person. no causal connection between the
'"""n '" e"Pl'N "e"' p,"nse WV"
II no sre"'er exposure I" injurious re-
suSs from h"t"Ia! '""ses' "n" he''ne'
contributes 10 produce 'hese nor 10 ae-
graNate tnelf enec'. as from hsh'hIhR
or severe neat or 'old, man those 10
winch persons se''efaIlN III that '"'antN'
whether so empio'rd or not are equally
exposed. ther" is no 'hsual connec'iof
between the employ fnen' ana the INJURY.
But where The tmploN ment brings a
greater exposure aud injury results the
injury does arise out Of the employment
Turning to the ndlng We think IT pre-
as a result of n greater exposure to the
elements than persons in that locality are
ordinarily subjected"
-
case and Couucs, SAY. INA, Io,,
Esk.roy. condsmnsd . ,a,ior IN d.a,t
for n,urderirc , so,I,.r n, s,,hhIn
him urdsr cIrcum s,anre. which In IN.
mind NJ IN. Iud,s ,hns ,ugrnya,od ~,