Thus, one employed as a workman on a sawmill on such days as it operated during a period of four months was not a casual employé. It does not render an employment casual that it is not for any specified length of time, or that the injury occurs shortly after the employé begins work.""

64

The words "or casual" have been stricken from the Massachusetts Act, so that all employés engaged in the usual course of the trade, business, occupation, or profession of their employer, except masters of and seamen on vessels engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, will receive compensation.**

farming as any other work about the farm, and the fact that it did not require a long period of time to complete the task, or that it needed to be done only once during the year, did not make it casual employment. Vojacek v. Schlaefer, Rep. Wis. Indus. Com. 1914-15, p. 8.

63 Clements v. Columbus Sawmill Co., vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 161.

64 The evidence showed that the employé, a brewery worker and member of the union, was engaged, the employment offered being that of helper in sinking and digging a well, and the employment in which he actually was engaged at the time of the injury being that of a helper in the carrying of pipes from the boiler room of the brewery. No time was fixed as the period of his employment, but the evidence showed that it would be at least two months, and possibly more. After working seven days the employé received a scratch from a pipe which he was carrying, dying two weeks later from septic pneumonia. It was held that the employment was not casual. Coyle v. Mass. Employés' Insur. Ass'n, 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 704 (decision of Com. of Arb., affirmed by Indus. Acc. Bd.).

65 An employé was employed to operate a buffing machine. He was paid by the hour and was not employed for any specified length of time. He was injured within three hours after he entered upon his employment, by being struck on the left side near the region of his heart by a "buffer's chuck," which disabled him so that he had to suspend work for the day, and was unable to again resume work prior to his death, which occurred sixteen days after the injury. The Commission held that the employment was not casual. In re Bridget McAuliffe, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 144.

66 See Introduction to 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases.

The insurer claimed that the employé was not entitled to compensation, because he received his injury while "trimming" a tree on church property, alleging that this work was "casual" and not in the usual course of the busi

Where the employer desires to raise the question as to whether the employé is a casual employé, and not within the Act, he should submit evidence on that question."7

69

"Casual employment," within the Connecticut Act, means occasional or incidental employment; an employment which comes without regularity." It is in this sense that the word is used, rather than in the sense of an employment arising through accident or chance, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey has held to be the true meaning of "casual" as employed in the Act of that state." If the employment be upon an employer's business for a definite time, as for a week or a month, it is not a casual employment. Nor is an employment casual if it is for a part of the workman's time at regularly recurring periods of time.70 A workman employed in developing land, work in which he would be engaged for several weeks if he satisfied the employer, and which was one of the

ness of the subscriber. The evidence showed that the workman was engaged by a representative of the subscriber and directed to perform such work as the foreman required. The foreman, who also was the tree warden of the town of Stoughton, ordered the employé to "trim" the tree upon which the injury occurred. It was held that the employé was entitled to compensation. Howard v. Mass. Employés' Ins. Ass'n, 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 1 (decision of Com. of Arb., affirmed by Indus. Acc. Bd., also by Sup. Jud. Ct., 218 Mass. 404, 105 N. E. 636).

67 Victor Chemical Works v. Industrial Board of Illinois, 274 Ill. 11, 113 N. E. 173.

68 Thompson v. Twiss, 90 Conn. 444, 97 Atl. 328.

69 Id., supported by Sabella v. Braziliero, 86 N. J. Law, 505, 91 Atl. 1032. In Coffey v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 167, it was held that the employment of filling defendant's icehouse with ice from a pond on the premises, such work being done every year and requiring considerable time for its accomplishment, the employé being expected to work until the icehouse was filled, was not casual employment.

In a casual employé's action the common-law defenses are available. Thompson v. Twiss (1916) 90 Conn. 444, 97 Atl. 328.

70 Thompson v. Twiss, supra.

businesses, though not the principal business of the employer, was not engaged in an employment of a casual nature." A dual employment does not make one a casual employé.72

To relieve the employer from liability under the California Act, the employment must be "both casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer." "

71 Id.

72 In Penfield v. Town of Glastonbury, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 637, a janitor employed by the city to take care of a school building, and also by a church for similar duties, was held not to have been a casual employé.

73 (Wk. Comp. Act, § 14) Paul v. Nikkel, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 648; Shouler v. Greenberg, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 146.

Compensable injuries.—Where a carpenter is employed by persons operating a dairy ranch to go upon the ranch and build a barn, residing on the ranch while at work, such work is not casual or outside the usual course of the business of his employers. Cowles v. Alexander & Kellogg, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 615. Where a carpenter regularly employed by a laundry corporation in working about the laundry is directed by the president of the corporation to do an odd job on the building belonging to a stockholder, and to have his brother assist him, and it appears that the corporation was in the habit of having this carpenter make such repairs on the private property of individual stockholders, without charge to them, and to pay such carpenter his regular earnings during such service, and that it was the intention and understanding so to do in this instance, the corporation was liable in case of fatal injuries to the brother during such employment. Such employment, though casual as to the deceased, was in the usual course of the employer's business. English v. Cain, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 399. The employment of a person to clean out the cellar of a restaurant, taking out abandoned boxes and goods and pumping out water which had seeped in, the work consuming three days, was in the usual course of the business of the restaurant, although casual, and the person employed was not excluded from compensation. McDermott v. Fanning, 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 14. While it was not a part of the laundry business to make repairs to the private property of its members, yet where it had long been the custom of the laundry to make such repairs, such custom brought the making of such repairs within the usual course of the business, actually undertaken by the laundry company as the employer of deceased. Id. Where a decorator hired a carpenter less than once a year, but has some woodwork to be done frequently in the course of his employment in putting up scaffolding upon which to fasten

It is the course of the business, not the nature of the employment, which is required to be usual. It follows that the fact that the decorations, such work being done usually by himself or his own employés, and where he engaged an outside carpenter to erect a booth at a carnival, to be decorated, the employment of such carpenter is in the usual course of the business of the decorator, the erecting of scaffolding upon which to hang decorations being in the usual course of his business, whether it be done by his own employés or infrequently by regular carpenters. Brain v. Eisfelder, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 30. Though a man employed for an emergency job, loading ice upon refrigerator cars, the work to last a few hours, is a casual employé, he is within the protection of the Act, where the work is the regular business of his employer. Paul v. Nikkel, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 648. Where a person who had done occasional errands before for compensation was permitted by the owner to try the automobile delivery wagon, and was given a parcel to deliver, nothing being said about payment therefor, such employment, though casual, was in the usual course of the business of the employer, and compensation should be awarded, for an injury sustained by the overturning of the automobile while on such errand. Smith v. Hayashi Floral Store, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 526. Where a carpenter was employed to repair and rearrange equipment of a creamery, the employment was in the usual course of employer's business. Hoover v. Engvick, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 875.

Employments not in usual course of the employer's business.-Neither the owner of a building, nor the manager, to whom the care of the premises has been intrusted in the owner's absence, has as a usual course of his business the repair of buildings, so that an injury to a workman engaged in making such repair would be received in the usual course of the employer's business. Peterson v. Pellasco, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 199.

Employments both casual and not in usual course.—A house painter employed at a rate per day at work which could be reasonably finished in two weeks, being casual employé not employed in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of his employer, where it did not appear that the employer was regularly engaged in any business which called for the employment of house painters, and the contract was for no definite period and obligated the painter to furnish the materials. Blood v. Industrial Acc. Com'n of State of California (Cal. App.) 157 Pac. 1140 (annulling award). Where a machinist was hired by a farmer to repair a tractor used in plowing, and, being offered employment at driving the tractor after he had repaired it, refused, and was injured before he had finished the repair work. (Wk. Comp., etc., Act, § 14) Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury (Cal. Sup.) 158 Pac. 1031 (annulling award). Where a carpenter was injured while constructing a small barn or chicken house on land being set out to lemon and avocado trees, the business of employer being horticultural, and the job being finished within four days. Brockman v. Sheridan, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 1061. Where a porter

cause requiring the employment is unusual and extraordinary does not prevent the employment from being in the usual course of the employer's business." Where the length of employment is less than one week, the employment is casual,75 though, contrary to agreement, more than a week is taken to do the work," but not where it is more than one week," though a more skillful employé

in a saloon was sent upstairs by the proprietor to wash the windows in the apartment above, where such employer resided with his family, the porter receiving extra pay when he did such upstairs work, and while so engaged fell to the sidewalk and was injured. Castellotti, v. McDonnell, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 351. Where defendant, a retired merchant and not engaged in the business of repairing roofs, engages the applicant to inspect defendant's roof, find the leaks, and repair them, and applicant is injured by accident while so doing. Trenholm v. Hough, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 260. Where a carpenter was employed by a farmer to assist him in erecting a small building, and the employment lasted and was expected to last not longer than one week. Aiken v. Anderson, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 323. Where a rooming house keeper employed a plasterer for a period of less than one week to lath and plaster certain rooms in his house. Augustine v. Cotter, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 49.

74 To combat a fire and prevent impending devastation on a grass range, pasturage on which was essential to the success of the owner's ranching business, a crew of men was employed by the owner. The Commission held that such employment was in the usual course of the owner's business, the work being necessary to preserve the business, though the cause requiring the employment was unusual and extraordinary. Mazzini v. Pacific Coast Ry., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 962.

75 (Wk. Comp. Act, § 14) Augustine v. Cotter, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 49; Brain v. Eisfelder, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 30; Trenholm v. Hough, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 260. Employment for a single task, lasting not more than fifteen or twenty minutes, is casual. Ginther v. Knickerbocker Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 458. Where the regular carpenter was in the usual course of his employment, but the service on the particular job would require only a day, the employment of his brother merely to assist on the one job was casual employment. English v. Cain, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 399.

76 Where one hires a workman to build a frame garage, under agreement that the workman will procure a helper and the work will not last more than six days, and where the work actually lasted eight days through failure to procure help, the employment is casual. Roadhouse v. Wells, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 251.

77 Feehan v. Tevis, 2 Cal. I. A. Dec. 434; Hoover v. Engvick, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 875. Cowles v. Alexander & Kellogg, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 615; Ra