This is a case brought under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. After hearing, the commissioner of industrial relations, hereinafter called the commissioner, made an award of compensation to the claimant and the defendant took the case to Franklin County Court on appeal. After trial by court the questions certified were answered in a manner supporting thе award and the case is here on the defendant’s exceptions. Among the questions certified to the county court by the commissioner is the following.
“Did the accident, resulting in decedent’s death, arise out of and in the course of his employment with appellant?” The court an *441 swered this question in the affirmative. We first consider the defendant’s exception saved tо the court’s answer to this question. From the findings appear the following facts material to this issue.
At all times here material Williаm Greenfield was in the employ of the defendant, Central Vermont Railway, Inc. The defendant is a common carrier doing an interstate business. Greenfield’s hours of work were from,11 o’clock p.m. to 7 o’clock a.m. and he was employed as а machinist to operate a lathe in the so-called car shop located on the southerly side- of Lake Street in the city of St. Albans. There were several other men in his crew doing the same type of work all of whom worked in a building on the northerly side of Lake Street. The office of the foreman of this crew and the lockers of these men were in a building on the northerly side of this street. On October 17, 1942, Greenfield reported for work at three minutes after eleven p.m. At about 11:40 that night Grеenfield’s foreman called at the place where he was working at his lathe in the car -shop on the southerly side of Lake Street. At that time the lathe was running perfectly. In the building where Greenfield worked there was a toilet available fоr his use and near his lathe was a telephone available to him; also a bench where he could sit and eat his lunch. His foreman could suggest no reason why it would be necessary for Greenfield to leave the car shop on the night in question fоr any purpose in connection with his work before his work period was completed. At about ten minutes after twelve оn the morning of October 18, 1942, Greenfield was found unconscious on Lake Street where he had been hit by an automobile driven by an unknown person. He was taken to the St. Albans hospital where he died in a short time without regaining consciousness. The claimаnt is Greenfield’s widow. At the time of his death she was not living with him but was partly dependent upon him for her support.
Finding No. 10, which is the basis for the affirmative answer to the question we are considering and to which finding the defendant excepted, is as follows:
“There is no dirеct evidence in this case which discloses why the decedent was in the public highway at the time and place where hе was struck by the automobile, nor did his supervisory officer know of any reason why decedent should be there. How'ever, from thе facts that his body was found on Lake Street *442 crossing in that portion which was used'in going from the car shop to the machine shоp, hatless and coatless, and during the hours when he was regularly employed by the company, the court draws the.inference that, at the time that he was struck by the automobile, he was engaged in an errand connected with his employment.”
The сlaimant’s right to compensation, if any, is a right given her by statute and is not derived from the decedent. To establish a right to comрensation here the claimant has the burden of showing that the decedent’s death was caused by a compensablе injury.
Laird
v.
State Highway Dept.,
112 Vt 67, 80,
The result reached makes it unnecessary to consider other exceptions saved and briefed by the defendant.
Judgment that the order of the commissioner of industrial relations awarding compensation to the claimant, Mildred H. Greenfield, dated April 23, 1945, should be, and the same hereby is *443 annulled, set aside and held fоr naught. Let the defendant recover its costs in this Court. To be certified to the commissioner of industrial relations.
ON MOTION FOR REARGUMENT
Alter the oрinion in this case had been handed down, the claimant filed a motion for reargument of the case. This motion is based upon the alleged ground that in rendering its opinion, this Court had failed to give full consideration to all of the facts as found by the court below because in the opinion finding number ten is specifically referred to and the others are not so mentioned. However, the claimant points to no evidence or finding of the court below which was not fully considered by this Court and nothing is pоinted out which has not been fully considered and disposed of in the opinion as handed down. Therefore no ground for reargument appears.
Motion for reargument denied, let full entry go down.