The claimant was employed in a mine of a subscriber to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. The mine was on a hill and a hoist was operated by the employer to takе the employees up and down the hill. On the occasion of claimant’s injury, his work was over for the dаy; he signalled for the hoist several times but the operator failed to respond; in such case it “was .up to the men to walk olí” or wait indefinitely on the hoist (accоrding to the mine superintendent), so thе claimant started down the hill on a path used regularly (“almost daily”) by thе employees when the hoist was not available; and when a few hundred feet from the hoist landing (on the hill) and while still on the employer’s property, he fell and broke his lеg. Compensation was denied on the ground that claimant’s injury was not rеceived in the course of his еmployment, and was not the result thereof.
*493
Upon an examinatiоn of the authorities we find it to be tbе general rule that when an emрloyee is accidentally injurеd upon premises owned or controlled by the employer аt a point reasonably proximate to the place of work, while the employee is going to or. from his work on a permissible route in general use by the emрloyees, such injury will be deemed tо have arisen from and in the course of the employment within the Wоrkmen’s Compensation Acts. See the following authorities on Workmen’s Compensation Laws: 1 Schneider, p. 779; Harper, sec. 36; Boyd, seс. 486; Annotation, 49 A. L. R., pp. 426 and 443. This rule aсcords with the opinion of this cоurt expressed in
De Constantin
v.
Commission,
We therefore hold that the facts in this case bring the plaintiff within this rule and reverse the holding of the commissioner.
Reversed and remanded.