81 Ind. App. 545 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1924
Lee Conner was in the employment of ap
From an award of compensation to appellee, the widow and dependent of Conner, this appeal is prosecuted.
The question presented is, whether, under the facts above stated, and which were found by the Industrial Board, the accident which resulted in the injury and death of Conner, arose out of and in the course of his employment, within the meaning of §2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Acts 1915 p. 392, §80201 et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1921). It is urged by appellant that there is no evidence that Conner was acting in the
It is a well-established rule of law in compensation cases, that where an employee, in the performance of his duties as a traveling salesman, is required to use the streets of a city, such streets become his place of work, and the hazard incident to travel thereon, including the danger of coming in contact with moving street cars, is a danger incident to his employment. Bachman v. Waterman (1918), 68 Ind. App. 580, 121 N. E. 8; Cook’s Case (1922), 243 Mass. 572, 137 N. E. 733. The mere fact that the hazard is one to which every person on the street is exposed is not sufficient to defeat compensation. Katz v. A. Kadans & Co. (1922), 232 N. Y. 420, 134 N. E. 330, 23 A. L. R. 401; Moran’s Case (1919), 234 Mass. 566, 125 N. E. 591. It is also the law that where, an employee charged with the performance of a duty is found injured at a place where his duty may have required him to be, there is a natural presumption that he was injured in the course of, and in consequence of, the employment. Saunders v. New England, etc., Tube Co. (1920), 95 Conn. 40, 110 Atl. 558, 6 W. C. L. J. 271; Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co. (1919), 263 Pa. St. 113, 106 Atl. 192, 18 N. C. C. A. 1056, 3 W. C. L. J. 780; Wishcaless v. Hammond, etc., Co. (1918), 201 Mich. 192, 166 N. W. 993, 17 N. C. C. A. 247, note.
In the case at bar, there is no direct evidence as to what Conner was doing at the street crossing where, and at the time, he received the fatal injury; but since, as shown by the evidence, and as found by the Industrial Board, his work required him to travel in all parts of the city, the routes for the different days of the week being of his own choosing, and that if anything off the route for any day required his attention, it was his duty to go and attend to it;
Award affirmed.