24 Haw. 324 | Haw. | 1918
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
The complainant, appellee, Alfred Silva, on July 16, 1916, was, and for some time prior thereto had been employed as, the manager of the. Kaiwiki Milling Company, Limited, a domestic corporation. This company had erected a mill at or near Hilo, Hawaii, for the purpose of manufacturing sugar from cane to he grown by the homesteaders and independent land-holders in the vicinity of the mill. The mill had just been completed, and on the date mentioned, which fell on a Sunday, the mill machinery was to be started up for the first time and it was decided by the manager, after consultation with several of the directors of the company, who approved of the plan, that this occasion, which was of great interest to the company as well as to the community, should be duly celebrated. The complainant had charge of the celebration and it was participated in by some of the directors, stockholders, employees of varied nationality, and others. Mr. Cabrinha, one of the directors, had a prominent part in the celebration, and a portion of the expenses of the-ceremonies was borne by the company. Some of the Japanese employees, after securing permission from the manager, had constructed a scaffolding about fifty feet in
Numerous exceptions are specified in respondents’ bill of exceptions, only three of which now appear to be relied upon, to wit: (1) The injury for which the judgment was given did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the complainant. (2) No evidence was offered showing the liability of the Home Insurance Company of Hawaii, Limited. (3) The complainant at the time of his injury was receiving from the employer an amount greater than $36 per week and so was not an employee within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Little need be said in this opinion respecting the last two exceptions specified. The first exception, however, calls for a construction of section 1 of Act 221, S. L. 1915, and known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The section reads as follows:
“Section 1. This Act shall apply to any and all industrial employment, as hereinafter defined. If a workman receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer or the insurance carrier shall pay compensation in the amounts and to the person or persons hereinafter specified.”
It is vigorously contended by counsel for the respondents that the injuries sustained by complainant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Counsel’s main contention seems to be that while the accident may have arisen in the course of complainant’s employment it did not arise out of such employment. The attempts of courts to formulate general rules relative to the distinction between the terms “out of” and “in the course of” have met with little success. All agree, however, that the terms are not intended to be synonymous. An injury may he received in the course of the employment and still have no causal connection Avith it so that it can be said to arise
. The words “out of” involve the idea that the accident is in some manner due to the employment. It is conceded by complainant that there must be a causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the resulting injury. While the appearance need not have been foreseen or anticipated it must appear after the event to have its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence. The statutory requirement should not be narrowly construed, however. An employee must reasonably be allowed some latitude for the exercise of his own judgment as to when and how he can best serve the interests of his employer.
It is a matter of common knowledge throughout this Territory that the managers of sugar mills and of sugar plantations have no specific hours or days of labor; their duties are continuous as regards time. The manager of a sugar mill may be called upon for the performance of some duty at any hour of any day or night. This condition obtaining it is plain to be seen that the complain
The undisputed evidence in this case is that the celebration that was being conducted on the day in question was for the benefit of the mill company “to show that the mill was completed and to aid in- selling the company’s stock.” This celebration was not only sanctioned, hut participated in, by a number of the directors of the company and part of the expenses of the celebration was defrayed out of the funds of the company. It being the duty of the manager to assist in the celebration it follows as a matter of law that the injury he sustained arose “out of” his employment.
Counsel for the respondents insistently urges that the throwing of the idee cakes, for which the scaffolding was erected, was distinctively a Japanese affair separate and apart from the celebration with which the manager was concerned. The evidence does not sustain this contention. Various forms of amusement were indulged in, all a part of one general event. The Japanese laborers participated, and, as expressed in the evidence, it was a Japanese as well as a Portuguese celebration, and all for the benefit of the company.
Workmen’s compensation laws are of recent origin but have met with spontaneous approval throughout the country. The Federal Government, a large majority of the States, Alaska, the Canal Zone and this Territory now have measures for the relief of injured workmen, all bear
Where a servant undertakes in the course of his employment, during the proper hours therefor and in the proper, place, to do something in the furtherance of his master’s business and meets with accidental injury therein the trial
We are of tbe opinion that tbe injury received by tbe complainant and for which judgment was given arose both out of and in tbe course of bis employment.
Tbe contention made by tbe respondents to the effect that at tbe time of tbe injury complainant was receiving from tbe employer an amount greater than $36 per week and that be was for this reason precluded from recovery herein is entirely groundless. Tbe evidence clearly shows that- at tbe time of tbe injury tbe defendant herein was receiving tbe sum of $75 per month and no more, and this status we hold was not changed by reason of the fact that in February 1917 tbe directors of tbe company voted to issue to complainant one hundred shares of tbe capital stock of tbe company in recognition of bis services, money and credit in promoting tbe company.
Tbe other remaining exception appearing in tbe record is that “No evidence was offered showing tbe liability of
The exceptions are overruled.