*1 robbery scene without a word and to the
passing at- them before Green This is tacked the victim. testimony Appellant’s could be court, upon trial
relied evaluating court, reviewing the suffi- ciency the Government’s case challenge by ver- motion for directed homely acquittal. To draw the dict of by an ac- analogy, introduced evidence give defense cannot in his own cused horse,” in- can
life a “dead
vigorate a weak one. sup- claims find no
Appellant’s other court’s
port the record. carefully charge in our drawn and demand correct. As
view Carter, supra, charge based recently “where noted
Court jury properly other- instructed reasonable the standard
wise on language charge doubt, Car- required.” Hunt v. United
ter States, U.S.App.D.C. rec- A jury in- was so
ord shows
structed.
Affirmed. DEVANDER, Appellant,
Albert E. VAN Inc., al., CO., et ELECTRIC
HELLER Appellees. MASSEY, Appellant,
William L. al., CO., ELECTRIC et
HELLER Appellees.
Nos. Court of
United States Circuit. Sept. *2 twenty equipment. minutes
trical About job leaving fell his Van Devander after asleep his seriously injured. The car and was commissioner, appellant deputy also an here, order1 entered injury attribut “was sleep due to the claimant’s lack of able long unusually of work [and] in the of and course arose out (J.A. 2) compensa employment.” The deputy order of the commissioner tion Washington, Mannino, A. James Mr. by the District Court and reversed 21,720, Messrs. appellant C., in No. for D. appeal and followed. We reverse Koonz, Jr., Ashcraft Lee C. Joseph H. on the find reinstate the award based C., Gerel, Washington, D. Martin E. and ings deputy of brief, appellant No. in for on the were 21,720. Longshoremen’s The and Har Colby, Atty., De- Leavenworth bor Workers’ Act affords Mr. Justice, Asst. partment of with whom for “accidental or death aris the; Weisl, Jr., employm and Atty. ing L. of in of Gen. Edwin out and course Atty., Bress, ent,”2 deputy provides and that “the G. U. S. and Messrs. David Department Hollander, Atty., power have full Morton commissioner shall brief, authority questions respect for Justice, on the to hear were all findings 21,838. of”3 claims filed. The No. accepted deputy must be commissioner Washing- Jr., Stewart, E. Mr. William “unsupported by unless subtsantial evi C., Richard ton, whom Messrs. D. dence the record as considered Clarke, J. Galiher, H. Wade W. William only may set whole”4 and aside “[i]f Washing- Reis, Gallagher and Julian H. lim law.” Our in accordance with appel- brief, C., ton, for on the D. were permit scope of does not us ited lees. shape rule all cases of Cir- Senior Miller, Before “in to decide transit” but Wilbur K. Burger Judge, and McGowan, cuit whether, particu on the evidence in this Judges. Circuit presented to the lar case as it was commissioner, there was short, In Judge: conclusion he BURGER, reached. Circuit evidence, decision under the not our his summary appeals from a These are result, view as to the correct which is order of an administrative reversal heart matter. Compensation granting Workmen’s scope em sustained in uncontradicted evidence be Appellant amply ployment. Devander fore Van commissioner justified Appellant approximately hours on worked conclusion that falling sleep. duties Van Devander’s while driv without Some heavy directly elec induced the exhaus- included the installation 919(a) (1957). 3. filed for com- U.S.C. § Devander pensation Longshoremen’s under the O’Leary Brown-Pac.-Maxon, Compensation Act. 44 Harbor Workers’ 504, 508, 470, 472, U.S. (1927), amended, 33 U.S.C. Stat. 1424 as (1951); accord, Voehl v. Indem (1957), applicable to the made §§ 901-950 nity Ins. Co. North U.S. May by the Act of 162, 166, L.Ed. 53 S.Ct. (1928), 36 D.C. 45 Stat. 600 (1933). (1967). 501, 502 §§ Code 921(b) 902(2), 33 U.S.C. § § 2. 33 U.S.C. points dur- tion hours’ continuous work rather than unusual of 26 arising sleep deprived of out of which he was foreseeable assigned consequences perform requiring work. abnormal
order to at remain his work argument Appellees’ that Work for 26 hours. Where hazard of Compensation not extend does men’s journey, here, out “arises” *3 employee the is sustained while extraordinary and in the course of de performance proceeding to or from the employment mands of there is a dis expresses employment of his broad and relationship cernible causal which dispositive truism justify to the tribunal administrative by peculiar presented the facts this rec attributing employ the the hazard to important step ord. in cases of em An responsibility ment and hence for the re ployment-related injuries to scrutinize is injury. assign sultant Continuous work setting whether the to determine factual by employer ment the of this positive there is a direct causal extraordinary for 26 was an de employment connection the foreseeably exposed mand and the em bring injury. required the What is to ployee to the kind of risk which led to the claimant within the ambit injury. employer An who calls for * * * “continuity statute of cause is variety such extended effort has a continuity in time and combined with protect to alternatives such from a haz * * *." space Field v. Charmette engagement ard —the alert driver 141, 139, Co., Knitted Fabric 245 N.Y. providing or a taxi or facilities re 642, (Cardozo, J.).6 (1927) 156 N.E. 643 undertaking travel, storative rest before by This is illustrated the numerous cases to mention few. Hence there was recovery permitting where the conditions evidentiary underly substantial employment the were found cause of finding the commissioner’s occurring subsequent to the that Van Devander’s employee’s departure from the work consequence was a of 26 hours of unin place. terrupted employment without rest and proximate that the cause of his in which Situations falling asleep while home. The been be denied because no nexus existed judgment of the District Court is va job itself tween the and an sus cated and these cases are remanded for coming going the tained from or to entry affirming judgment the ac easily distinguishable site are tion of the this case. examination “com An Reversed and remanded. going” the cases discloses predicated up denial of is MILLER, WILBUR K. Senior Circuit “ordinarily the Judge (dissenting): jour employees] in such encounter [the neys employer’s I think the incident are not to “hazard” —that Van De- might Indemnity vander fall he business.” Ins. Voehl v. Co. drove 169, 162, car after of North work —was not incident 288 U.S. employer’s majority business. The usual, might easily ordinary, speaks pro- the latter This have normal, getting tected that hazard routine hazards which Devander, any taxi for providing two him would attend travel between Cf., g., analysis con Gould Nat’l 6. The of course Batteries v. Indus causative Com’n, 34 Ill.2d 214 N.E.2d the remedial intendment siderate of (1966); liberally Act, Klimas v. Trans Air “is to be construed Carribbean which ways, employees 10 N.Y.2d their de 219 N.Y.S.2d benefit pendents.” Britton, N.E.2d 714 Vozzolo U.S. App.D.C. Massey, U.S.App.D. (1967) (footnote omitted). 8. E. Foster C., -, (May 29, 1968). F.2d 343
HU giving time driver, him an alert to rest. appear
It does protections or these
asked help.. need of he was in indicated that he sleepy he tired and knew alone how He was; he undertook I think when so engaged home, he car drive his risk own and assumed venture might asleep. To hold that he fall mishap responsible
employer for his improper.
seems to me I would af-
firm.
OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORK UNION,
ERS INTERNATIONAL LO AFL-CIO, Petitioner, CAL 3-89
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent,
Union Corporation, Carbide Intervenor.
No. 21289.
United States Court of District of Columbia Circuit. March