40 A.2d 28 | Pa. | 1944
We are confronted here with one of the many cases in which the difficulty of decision arises, not in the formulation of a legal principle, but in the attempt to apply an established principle to the facts.
This appeal is from the judgment of the Superior Court (
Were there no circumstances in the case other than those thus narrated claimant would doubtless be entitled *16
to compensation because that which happened would have been such an unexpected and unusual pathological result of an ordinary activity as to come within the class of occurrences held to be "accidents" by reason of the extraordinary nature of their effect rather than their cause: see Parks v. MillerPrinting Machine Co.,
We come, then, to the vital question: Was claimant, in riding his motorcycle, engaged in work of a substantially more hazardous nature than that which characterized the usual course of his employment? It is not every deviation from the normal or ordinary routine of labor that fulfills the requirement in such cases for establishing what the law would regard as an accident: Good v. Pennsylvania Department of Property andSupplies,
Judgment reversed and here entered for defendant. *18