Respondent, an employee of Ross Builders Supplies,, Inc,, while trimming a piece of board to make a wedge as an ac-cbmfhodatióri' for1 a' fellow employee, sustained' an injury which - necessitated áfnputation of three fingers " of the left hand.' ’The hearing' Commissioner’s'' award of compensation wás affirthed- by-the full Commission, save for reduction bf the'-amount-awarded for'disfigurement. Appeal here is from ¿' 'circuit'court-order 'affirming the Commission’s award. The sole i question' for our determination is whether there was evidence to. support the Commission’s finding that the accident árose but of. and in'the course of the employment.
Respondent, a-white man twenty-three years old, who had had training as a carpenter, was first employed by the company in 1957,. to. build.displays. He was later transferred to the company’s carpentry shop, where he did general carpentry, including construction of window units, display counters, and door frames. Later he was assigned to the company’s store as salesman in the paint department; and in addition to such duties-he- was often requested by his supervisor, Mr. Stone, to build counters for display of the cohipány’s equipment' .and.merchandise;;Mr.' Stone’' ymuld indicate what kind of display counters he wanted, but the actual work of constructing them was left to respondent, who •iVc5Üíd.'ídO-'this’'5vlork,-iñ''thfe 'carpentry-shop during periods ■when'wo'rltf'in.'the'isfore'was-slack;'. \h.“. '■
*40 On December 4, 1958, after finishing his lunch, respondent went to the carpentry shop to make a leg for a display counter. Having found a board suitable for that purpose, and having run it over the table saw and cut its width to eight inches, he decided that he would first make from it a wedge for a fellow employee, Burfield, to level a mantel clock in Burfield’s home, respondent having a short time before made one for him that had not given a satisfactory result. While pushing the board through the joiner to taper it, respondent was injured. The evidence shows without contradiction that to have cut and tapered the wedge would have taken about five minutes.
This is not a case of lending aid to a fellow employee in the performance of the latter’s duty to the employer. The task that respondent was performing was entirely personal to his fellow employee, and his injury was therefore not compensable unless the deviation from the course of his employment was so trivial that it could be fairly characterized as insubstantial. Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 27.15. The Commission found as a fact that the deviation was insubstantial. We think that the evidence before referred to adequately supports that finding.
Affirmed.