course of his employment, just as in the case of an accident happening after he has entered the works in the morning and while he is proceeding to his own place in the works.76 If the employé remains after hours for some legitimate purpose connected with the employment, he may still be within the course of his employment,77

mour v. Dorman, Long & Co., Ltd. [1911] 4 B. W. C. C. 279, C. A.); where a miner was knocked down by an engine and killed at a place 400 yards from the mouth of the shaft and 280 yards from the office of the colliery, while going home along a track along a branch railway which belonged to the colliery (Graham v. Barr and Thornton [1913] 6 B. W. C. C. 412, Ct. of Sess.); where a collier was killed after his day's work, while going home along a private railway belonging to his employers and used for conveying things to and from the colliery (McNicol v. Summerlee & Mossend Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. [1902] 4 F. 989); and where a workman fell while returning home along a public footpath over his employer's land, because of the rough nature of the path (Williams v. Smith [1913] 6 B. W. C. C. 102, C. A.). When a riveter, who was working on a ship in dock, came on deck expecting to go ashore for breakfast, he found that the vessel was being moved, and, the gangway having been taken away, a rope between the ship and the quay was the only possible way of reaching shore. The rope gave way when he slipped down, and he was injured. It was held that his action was reasonable, and that the accident arose out of the employment. Keyser v. Burdick & Co. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. 87, C. A. A miner whose duties began in a lamp cabin, and who was injured on the employer's premises, but 360 yards from the cabin and 20 minutes before time to begin work, was not injured in the course of his employment. Anderson v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd. (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. 539, Ct. of Sess. If a man goes from his working place to another place in the works, he must get back to his work, and, if in going back he meets with an accident, that is an accident arising in the course of his employment, just as in the case of an accident happening after he has entered the works in the morning and while he is proceeding to his own place in the works.

76 Thomson v. Flemington Coal Co., Ltd. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C., at page 408. 77 Where a moving picture actress remains in the studio after hours to arrange her wardrobe, and accidentally falls over the doorsill of the room of another actress, where she had stopped for a moment, suffering an injury to her shoulder, such injury happens in the course of the employment while preparing herself for her work, and is compensable. Bolles v. New York Motion Picture Corp., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 501. Where the quitting time varied somewhat with the requirements of the work, and the employé was injured a few minutes after the regular hour for quitting, while on the premises of the employer, doing work of the character he was employed to perform and believing

but not, however, if he remains for purposes of his own.78 An employé is under the protection of the Compensation Act even after his discharge, providing he be injured upon the premises of the employer while remaining there for reasons connected with his former employment." A workman whose employment requires him to occupy sleeping and living quarters furnished by the employer, injured after hours, but at such quarters, is injured in course of employment, but it is otherwise where the employé 'is living on the premises merely for his own convenience. The California Com

in good faith that such services were required of him, he was entitled to compensation for disability as the result of the injury suffered by him. Gordon v. Eby, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 16. Where an employé who has remained about his place of employment after the hour for closing is injured by robbers seeking his employers' property which he defended, such injury is received in the course of his employment. Johnston v. Mountain Commercial Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 100.

78 An employé who remained upon the premises after quitting work, instead of leaving by the usual means of egress, went to a part remote from the part where he was employed to see an employé of another department on some personal matter of interest to himself, and while so doing was injured. He was not injured “in the course of employment." In re A. V. Mitchell, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 56.

A workman off duty, but on premises of employment, who volunteered to do a piece of work and met with an accident resulting in his death, was not injured in the course of employment. In re Simpson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 316.

79 Goering v. Brooklyn Mining Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 141. Where an employé in a few minutes after being discharged, while cleaning up his work and preparing to leave the premises, is injured by accident, such accident occurs in the course of his employment, and he is entitled to compensation therefor. Booth v. Burnett, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 125.

80 In re Hott, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 302. An employé who had living quarters on a government boat while off duty, at about 5:30 a. m., left his bedroom for some unknown reason, fell overboard, and was drowned. The accident was held to have been in the course of the employment. In re Jenkins, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 334.

Where an engineer, employed to install machinery on a dredger, is required for the benefit of his employers to live on board, and while preparing his breakfast is injured by the explosion of a gas stove, the injury occurred in the course of the employment. McLean v. Shield, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 1046.

mission held that, where an employé is furnished a boarding place and bunk by the employer upon the latter's premises, and is injured after working hours, while going from the cockhouse to the bunkhouse after supper, such injury does not occur in the course of the employment and is not compensable, saying that, while the fact that an accident happening upon the employer's premises is usually taken as an exception to the rule that an accident outside of working hours is not compensable, such exception will not be extended to include accidents about the living quarters of the employé after the day's work has been finished. Where a workman arrives early, and is injured on the premises while waiting to go to work, he is in the course of employment.82 That the accident occurred while the workman was taking a short cut across his employer's premises does not prevent it from being in the course of employment. Where an employé is injured in going aboard or

83

81 Mahoney v. Sterling Borax Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 708.

82 "There must be a certain margin of unpunctuality allowed, and if he is on the premises before he has to do his work, and during that time the accident arises, it arises out of and in the course of his employment.” Fitzpatrick v. Hindley Field Colliery Co. (1992) 4 W. C. C. 7, C. A. An injury to a miner, who had got his lamp and "tallies,” and, having arrived at the pit's mouth earlier than necessary, was waiting to descend when the accident occurred, was in the course of his employment. Id.

Where a workman who arrived early began work on the premises of his employers a few minutes before the hour of 8 a. m., when his hours began, and sustained an accidental injury while so engaged, such accident arose while he was performing service in the course of his employment. Findley v. Judah Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 760.

A workman, injured by an explosion while on the premises of the government waiting for the time to begin work, is injured in course of his employment. In re Giovanni, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 287.

83 The accident was in the course of the employment: Where a miner, on leaving his work and taking a dangerous short cut across a heap of waste material on the premises of the employer, fell and was fatally injured (Hendry v. United Collieries, Ltd. [1910] 3 B. W. C. C. 567, Ct. of Sess.); where some trucks were standing on some railway lines on the premises of a colliery, and a collier, leaving work by his usual route, tried to pass under them, and was injured when they were moved (Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Co. [1910]

leaving his ship by means provided for ingress and egress, he is within the ambit of his employment at the time of such injury, and is entitled to compensation therefor.84

One employed as a pipeman and truckman in the fire department of a city was not injured on the premises of his employer where he was injured while using the streets of the city in returning to work after his midday meal. He was merely using the streets the same as any employé of a private employer would do. The streets may constitute the premises of the city in many cases, as, for instance, where a policeman or fireman is injured while on duty in a street or a street employé is injured in the performance of his duty thereon. But where the streets are used solely for the purpose of going to or from an employment carried on at a definite place other than a street, they are not premises, within the meaning of a Compensation Act.85

The Washington Act authorizes recovery of compensation where the injured employé is injured on the employer's premises by the act of a third person.88

§ 110. Means of conveyance

There have been several decisions in this country and in England as to when and how far an employé can be said to have been

2 B. W. C. C. 42, C. A.); also where officials of the railroad knew that a short cut which workmen had been forbidden to use was habitually used by many of them, and a railway goods checker, leaving work by this route, was fatally injured, the accident occurred in the course of the employment (McKee v. Great Northern R. Co. [1909] 1 B. W. C. C. 165, C. A.). But in Haley v. United Collieries, Ltd. (1907) S. C. 214, Ct. of Sess., a collier who, although there were two provided exits from the colliery, neither of which crossed the railroad, took a short cut across a siding on the premises, a route that was not expressly forbidden and which was sometimes used by the miner, and was run down by a train and injured, was held not to have been injured in the course of his employment.

84 Boucher v. Olson & Mahony Steamship Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 248. 85 Hornburg v. Morris (Wis.) 157 N. W. 556.

86 Stertz v. Industrial Insurance Commission of Washington (Wash.) 158 Pac. 256.

in the employ of his master while traveling to and from his work in a vehicle or means of conveyance provided by the latter, and how far injuries received in such a conveyance can be said to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment.87 The rule has been established in accordance with sound reason that the employer's liability in such cases depends upon whether the conveyance has been provided by him, after the real beginning of the employment, in compliance with one of the implied or express terms of the contract of employment, for the mere use of the employé, and is one which the employés are required, or as a matter of right are permitted, to use by virtue of that contract.88 Pursuant to this

87 Discussed in an article by Prof. Bohlen, in 25 Harvard Law Review, 401

et seq.

88 In re Donovan, 217 Mass. 76, 104 N. E. 431, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 778; Davies v. Rhymney Iron Co., 16 Times Law Rep. 329; Holmes v. Great Northern Ry [1900] 2 Q. B. 409; Whitbread v. Arnold, 99 L. T. 105; Cremins v. Gest, Keen & Nettlefolds, [1908 1 K. B. 469; Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 439; Hoskins v. J. Lancaster, 3 B. W. C. C. 476; Parker v. Pout, 105 L. T. 493; Walters v. Staveley Coal & Iron Co., 105 L. T. 119, 4 B. W. C. C. 89, 303; Greene v. Shawe (1912) 2 Ir. 430, 5 B. W. C. C. 530; Mole v. Wadworth, 6 B. W. C. C. 128, 6 B. W. C. C. 511; Walton v. Tredegar Iron & Coal Co., 6 B. W. C. C. 592.

Where a street car motorman is injured while boarding a street car to take him to the place where he is to take his own car, and was neither obliged to report before taking out his car, nor did his time or pay commence until he took charge of his car, and where the car upon which the employé is injured is not furnished by the railway company for the purpose of taking its employés to work, but is used in carrying passengers generally, though employés are allowed use of all cars free of charge, whether going to work or on private business, such injured employé is not acting in the course of his em ployment at the time of the accident, and is not entitled to compensation. Crow v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 449.

Where an employé in the claims department of a railroad was on his way on one of the cars of his employer to perform a duty as process server, adjuster, or investigator, and was injured by some one stepping on his toe and so crushing it that gangrene set in, he was under the Act. Brown v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., The Bulletin, N. Y., vol. 1, No. 6, p. 12.

Employés on their way to work in conveyances provided by their employ ers were injured in the course of their employment, where an engine cleaner