131 Neb. 212 | Neb. | 1936
This suit was instituted by Mabel Goodwin to recover compensation for the death of her husband, Russell Goodwin, under the workmen’s compensation law of this state. From a judgment awarding the compensation, the 'defendants have appealed.
The record discloses that Russell Goodwin, at and prior to his death, had been employed by the Omaha Printing Company of Omaha, Nebraska, as a salesman. It was his duty to call on and sell to various county officers in the state of Nebraska. He had been in the employ of the Omaha Printing Company for 15 years and, at the time of his death, was receiving wages in the amount of $45 a week. He used his own automobile in connection with his work and received five cents a mile from the Omaha Printing Company for the use thereof.
It further appears that on the morning of September 6, 1934, the deceased conferred with the officers of the Omaha Printing Company, after which he started in his
’ About ten miles west of Omaha, he permitted one Harold Malmberg to ride in the car with him. At a point four miles west of Schuyler, Nebraska, Malmberg asked to be let out of the car so that he could go north from that point. After the car was stopped, Malmberg drew a gun and ordered Goodwin out of the car. As Goodwin was leaving the car, Malmberg shot him and left him lying in the road. Malmberg took the car and its contents and drove away. Goodwin suffered injuries from which he died. Malmberg was captured and is now serving a life sentence in the penitentiary for murder. The only issue before the trial court was whether or not Russell Goodwin died as a result of injuries received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Omaha Printing Company.
It is not disputed that Goodwin died as a result of an accident within the meaning of section 48-152, Comp. St. 1929. Neither is it contended that the accident was not in the course of the employment. The question to be determined is whether the accident arose out of the employment.
The case of City of Fremont v. Lea,, 115 Neb. 565, 213 N. W. 820, was one where compensation was allowed for the death of a fireman who was accidentally shot with a toy cannon in the hands of other firemen on the streets of Hastings while attending a state firemen’s convention. In that case the court said: “It is insisted, however, that the accident occurred upon the public streets of Hastings, and that the danger created by the accidental discharge of the cannon was one to which the public, gen
In Coster v. Thompson Hotel Co., 102 Neb. 585, 168 N. W. 191, the deceased was engineer and general foreman of mechanical work for a hotel owned by defendant. It was his custom to buy materials for repair work, and, if quickly needed, take them to the hotel himself. On his way to a plumber’s shop for materials, his motorcycle collided with a street car and injuries were caused which resulted in his death. .The court, in affirming a compensation award, said: “The next point argued by the defendant'is that the death ‘was not caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.’ We cannot take this view. It was a part of Coster’s duty to obtain materials. He was his own master as to his hours and place where he might engage in his master’s service. When he ordered material by telephone from his house he was in the course of his employment, and when he was accidentally struck and killed upon the street while on the way to procure materials, the accident arose out of
In the case of Good v. City of Omaha, 125 Neb. 307, 250 N. W. 61, where plaintiff was engaged in grading roads and was struck by a brick hurled at him by some boys whom he had chased off his machine, the court said: “When an employee is engaged to work upon a public street in his master’s business and is there injured, while engaged in such employment, by a missile intentionally thrown at him by another, without provocation from the employee, such injury arises from a risk of the street that is such as to cause it to arise out of and in the course of his employment.”
In the case of Beem v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co., 85 S. W. (2d) (Mo.) 441, 100 A. L. R. 1044, the court said: “Death of traveling salesman occurring while he was being robbed on highway as he was traveling between towns on his usual route held compensable as 'arising out of employment,’ which term signifies a causal connection between death and employment, since salesman’s employment reasonably covered traveling over such road and being exposed to hazard" of highway robbery; it being immaterial whether salesman was killed while resisting robbery of his own money or that of his employer.”
In the case of Industrial Commission v. Pueblo Auto Co., 71 Colo. 424, 207 Pac. 479, the court said: “An auto salesman, driving a machine belonging to his employer and returning to town after making a sale, was attacked and killed by persons whose purpose was to obtain the automobile in which he was riding. Held, that the industrial commission was justified in awarding compensation to his dependent widow, his death having been occasioned by an accident arising out of, and in the course of his employ
In the case at bar, the duties of the deceased required him to travel the highway where the accident occurred. He was killed while being robbed of property, a part of which was his own and a part, that of the employer. A salesman who is required to travel from town to town for the purpose of selling his employer’s goods is as much within the employment in so doing as he is when selling goods at such towns. Highway robbery is a hazard of the highway and a hazard of an employee whose employment requires him to travel the highways in the service of his employer. The contention is made that the deceased brought the injuries upon himself by inviting Malmberg to ride with him. The record does not disclose that Goodwin disobeyed any directions or instructions of his employer in so doing. While it is true that highway robbery and murder are sometimes committed on the highways, yet it cannot be said that such acts are so common that the inviting of a “hitchhiker” to ride in the car is anything more than a charitable act. For aught we know, if Goodwin had not stopped when hailed by Malmberg, he might have been shot and robbed anyway. Robbery is generally planned and committed not because of but regardless of the acts and wishes of the victim. A traveling salesman in inviting a “hitchhiker” to ride in his automobile, under such circumstances as are shown in this case, does not step aside from his employment and act for himself on business or pleasure of his own. He is still within the scope of his employment. After, a
Affirmed.
