222 Mass. 163 | Mass. | 1915
The deceased employee, Erhardt Reithel, was employed as the superintendent of a woolen mill. It was a part of his duty to order from the premises of the subscriber any person or persons who entered without permission. During his employment he had directed a considerable number of such people to leave the mill. One Bombard entered the premises of the subscriber without permission in June, 1914, interviewed and annoyed an employee named Mrs. King, and created a disturbance. Reithel as superintendent ordered him to leave, and he did as directed. This occurrence was reported to the manager of the mill who instructed Reithel, if Bombard again appeared on the premises to order him out, and, if he did not go, to send for the police authorities. The finding of the Industrial Accident Board proceeds as follows: "Bombard appeared again on July 9, 1914, having a revolver in his possession, and engaged Mrs. King in conversation. He finally threatened Mrs. King with the revolver and she sent another employee, Provost, to the superintendent with a request that Bombard be ordered from the premises. In this connection, the- evidence shows that a daughter of the superintending employee also informed him that Bombard had a revolver and was going to
This finding presents a case of wholly unprovoked murder. The question is, whether this personal injury was one “arising out of and in the course of” the employment of Reithel. Plainly it arose in the course of his employment. It came upon him while he was doing his duty in the place and manner required by his contract of hire.
The only point of difficulty is whether it also arose out of the employment. The Industrial Accident Board has found that it did. The facts are not in dispute. The question to be decided is whether as matter of law this finding was erroneous.
The employee was the superintendent of a mill. It was a part of his general duty to order trespassers from the premises. In this respect he was required to deal with those more or less heedless of the rights of others in their conduct. Superimposed upon this general obligation resting on him by reason of his contract of employment was a special one respecting Bombard. It came into existence because Bombard on some occasion within a few weeks before the event in question had been upon the premises of the employer. He had come as a trespasser, he had annoyed a woman employee, and he had created a disturbance. It thus had appeared that he was a disorderly person. His conduct on that occasion was of sufficient importance to form the subject of a report by the superintendent to his superior, the manager of the factory. In view of these circumstances, the employee was given a special direction respecting Bombard. His duty was defined in this particular. He was to be ordered out, and the police were to be summoned if he did not go. Commonly such precautions are not taken nor such directions given respecting the ordinary trespasser. They indicate that the employer and employee realized that they were dealing with a maker of trouble who was or might be generally lawless in his conduct, and who must be treated accordingly for the security of property and the safety of employees and others who might be upon the premises. The liability to whatever per
Under our workmen’s compensation act it is not required that the injury be also an accident, differing in this respect from the English act and being more liberal to the employee. But even under the English act, in the present case the dependent would be
Decree affirmed.