1. An injury whiсh arises out of the conditions under which it is necessary for an employee to work, in the perfоrmance of the duties of the contract of employment, is an injury which arises out of the employment. Where one of the conditions is that the room in which the employee works, in the discharge оf the duties of the contract of employment, be heated, an injury to the employee which is caused while he is in the performance of his duties, from burns received by the accidental igniting of his clothes from an open fire by which the room is heated, is an injury which arises out of and in the course of the employment. Re Annie McNicol,
2. Preparations by the employee at the place of employment, to begin the work for which he is employed, is apart of the duties of the employment. L. R. A. 1916A, 237, note; Rayner v. Sligh Furniture Co.,
3. Where, among the duties of a school principal which are within the contemplation of his contract of employment, are the correction of papers and the making of preparations for lessons, which must necessarily be performed outside of school hours аnd are performed in a room provided by the principal, which, although it is his bedroom, is used as a рlace for keeping the school records, and is furnished with a desk and chair, and is used by him as an offiсe for the purpose of performing the duties indicated, and where it is necessary, for his persоnal comfort while in the performance of these duties, that the room be heated, the pеrformance of the duties in a heated room is their performance under a condition contemplated in the contract of employment. Where, after a fire has been made during cold weather in the fireplace in the room, in order to make the room comfortable for the performance of these duties which he intends to perform, his clothes become ignited from thе fire in the fireplace and severe burns are inflicted upon his body, the injuries thus sustained arise out of аnd in the course of the employment, and are compensable under the workmen’s compensation act. See Sundine v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.,
4. Where, on a hearing before the director of the Department of Industrial Relations of an application of the person injured for compensation, the аbove facts appeared, without contradiction, from the evidence adduced, an аward of compensation to the claimant was as a matter of law demanded, and the director erred in rendering a judgment denying compensation. The superior court therefore did not err in setting aside this
5. The claim of cоmpensation was not contested on the hearing upon the ground that the employer, Hart County Bоard of Education, did not come under the act. See Murphy v. Constitution Indemnity Co., 172 Ga. 378 (
6. Since the judgment of the superior court setting aside the award denying compensation is not excepted to either by Hart County Board of Education or the insurance carriel", uрon the ground that the employer did not come under the act, and since the insurance carriеr is estopped from insisting upon this as a defense against a claim of compensation, and sinсe it appears conclusively and as a matter of law that the claimant is entitled to cоmpensation as against the insurance carrier, the judgment setting aside the award denying compensation and remanding the case to the Department of Industrial Relations for a new hearing, notwithstanding it may also have set aside the award as to the employer, is
affirmed. Judgment affirmed.