Norwich bulletin., 1921-02-02
Commissioner Sustained For Second Time

did mot arise until the decedent stood l
 at the doorway n fainting condition and the finding is explicit that there was
 no causa1 relation between his employ
 ment and his being at the doorway while
 in that condition. In this respect the
 case at bar differs sharply from Wicks
 VI Dowell Co.,, L. R. (1902) K B.
 225S, where .;the decedent was an epiiep-
 tic and his: employment compelled him to
 stand on the edge of the opening into
 which stroke of epilepsy precipitated
 him All the other cases relied upon
 by the claimant are consistent with the
 rule that the causative danger must nave it's origin in risk connected with the employment and flow from it as a rational consequence. That being so. and the em- ploye being in the course of his employ ment, the fact that he voluntarily nov ed toward the spot where the accident oc- cured is immateriaL Robinson V. State, sS, Conn, 49; DeLuca ". Park Com m:ssioners. s4 Conn.,, I. [; Fiarenzo V. | Richards & Co.,, 93 Conn, 5ss; Procac- cino " Horton & Sons, 95 Conn, III Att, I 5S4. In this case the decedent did not ] fall out of the doorway through care | lessness or because of any disability which he brought to his employment i; l but because of a sudden faintness due | to a definitely, ascertained cause, which had no connection with his employment The finding leaves no room for inference. 1 His hands were seen to slip from the | bar, his knees to give way and his body ] collapsed and fell out between the bar 1 and the floor.
 It is said that because the decedent | was in the course of his employment 1 when the injury occurred, and becausl
 the open doorway was a continuing risk
 of the employment, that therefore the in-
 jury in question arose out of the em'
 ployment, and the claimant is entitled
 to compensation.
 Ordinarily that would be true, but il
 Is not necessarily true. Ordinarily the
 fact that the employe is in the course ot
 his employment is the very thing wnicI subjects him to the risks of his em
 ployment; end therefore causal reia ton between the injury and the em pfoyment will generally exist wherever : an Nmployev in the course of his employ
 Haent' is. injured by a risk to his em l ployment.a s%, ' But the term ''in the course of his em ployment'' is sufficiently elastic especial. : | whent the employment is in a supervisor. capacity, to permit the employe to de part temporarily from the performance of his contract of employment withou departing from the course of his em ployment; and if because of such tenn } porary departure from the performance ]: Of his duties the empioye is injured b . a risk incidental. to his employment -whil I he is doing something utterly irrelevan e to the employment he cannot recove !. Mann V. Glastonbury Knitting Co.,, g Conn, 116, is good illustration of thi n In that case the claimant, foreman s undertook to put a bottle of milk into tt hot air pipe and his hand came in col 't tact with a revolving fan. He was tt the course of his employment and u y injury was caused by hazard inciden It al to his employment, but we held th l. he could not recover because the injul Id was directly caused by a temporary d ie parture on his part from his emplo ot ment, and therefore did not arise out at1 the employment.
 n-l The general proposition involved " SC stated in Larke V. Hancock Life Ins c &1 9Os Conn 303, 309, as follows: An bel july which occurs in the curse of t h. employment wilt ordinarily arise out n the employment but not necessarily 'S. for the injury might occur out of an z he or omission for the exclusive benefit we the employe, or of another than the ma tn ter while the employe is engaged ca the course of his employment"
 e. In this case the acts and omissio
 leading to the injury, beginning W ve the conversation between the deced. " and the superintendent, and continui lie without any break in the chain of eau: ar ton, to the fall through the open do, us way, were wholly irrelevant to the , fly cedents employment, and the injury ( ho not arise out of the employment, but p of temporary departure therefrom, SC i| There is no error.