Norwich bulletin., 1920-01-06

preponderance of evidence in support Of the claim before the dependents can recover
 To the same effect is the language of Judge Beach in Mann vs. Glaston- bury Knitting Co.,, 90 Conn. on page 122.
 But when the injury arises from his own act, the claimant must first show that the act which caused it was within the scope Of his employment; and if the act is one which has no direct relation to his employment, or to the conditions surrounding the work, there is no presumption that the master has asserted to it in advance, and therefore it cannot be brought within the scope of his employment at all except by evidence af1irma lively showing that it was done with the knowledge and assent of the employ hr''
 A full and interesting discussion of this whole subject may be found i'll a note following Rayner ys. SIigh Fur niture Co, 1S0 Mich. 164 and ill a note tc Linnane vs. Aetna Brewing Co. 9f Conn. 15s.
 In this note it is said that the findings of the administrative board or the court trying the fact in the first instance are conclusive upon the question whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the em- plcyment and the appellate court will not interfere if there is any evidence to support such findings, although such evidence may be eontroverted. But where there is no evidence to show that the accident in question arose out of and in the course of the employment, a finding of the indus t..s1 k
 According to the commissioner statement of facts in his finding and memoranduna, there was absolutely nc evidence from which he could find that the accident arose out of the employment.
 The commissioner avs (pages 3 and of the finding) and although it is found that no person saw the acci- dent and it is not definitely known for just what purpose she left her worl, and went over to the elevator on this particular occasion, still the fact re- ! mains that she did so. and while look' i ing into the shaft, presumably to set where the elevator was, sile was fa- tally injured. There is TO evidence to show that this girl had reason tc 1 use the elevator on this day at this particular hour, nor is there evidence to the contrary f In the ab- sence of evidence to the contrary, i must be found that the injuries re- ceived by Geneyieve Saunders OF l Oct. 24, 1918. arose out of and in the course of her employment, as they were received during her regular 1 working hours. at a place where sht I might reasonably be expected to be and where her work required her tt be at times, and there is nothing tC t.ta e-f, l. -f. Yator at this particular time for pur poses connected with her employ ment. For reasons stated above which are more fully considered in tn memorandum attached, it is foun' l that said injuries arose out of and il l the course of decedent's employment ! This is simply throwing the bur l den of proof upon the defendants an, requiring them to prove that the in ] jury did not arise out Of the employ ment, and because they did not, O couldn't, finding the facts agains them.
 I am fully aware that the relation of the decedent may be proved b. circumstantial evidence, and that tn circumstances surrounding the acci dent may be sufficient to prove tha the accident arose out Of the em p4OS SlIlcuI.
 This was the case in most if no l all of the cases cited OH this point il the plaintiffs brief
 But this is not such a case.
 Here the theory that the deceden
 was injured while on some purpos
 of her own. outside of her employ
 ment. is equally consistent with th theory that she was acting within he l employment. ~
 The commissioner frankly says
 {me1n. page 9 that he does not kno7 what she went to the elevator for. II erumerates a variety fof reasons whic
 he says might have been in her mind
 and of course, any number nor
 might as well be suggested.
 The first, fourth. fifth. eighth an
 so much of the tenth as relates {
 paragraph one Of the exceptions 10 tn
 finding. of the reasons Of appeal, ar
 sustained.
 It is unnecessary to consider tl1
 other reasons of appeal.
 The motion to correct tho finding l denied.
 The award of the commissioner set aside on this ground.