The leisure of a sailor on board the vessel is as much in the ! course of his employment as active work.14 A seaman going ashore without leave is not doing what he might reasonably do. He simply has left his employment for a time. It is otherwise if he goes ashore with a leave, for the employment is continuous and implies leisure as well as labor.15 Death did not occur in the course of

usually required by his employer. It was held that the foreman did not lose his life in the course of his employment. In re Julia A. Watkins, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 135. The services of an employé regularly employed by a corporation were loaned to one of the officers and directors thereof to perform temporary service in the private business of the director. While performing such service the workman was on the premises of such director and officer, and the work was done under his direction and supervision. While performing such service the employé was injured. The Commission held that the injury was not in the course of employment. (Page & A. Gen. Code, §§ 1465–59) In re Wm. A. Jones, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 57. A laborer who, having had his fingers frozen in course of employment, later burned his fingers at home by accidentally setting fire to the bandages, was not injured as to the burn in the course of employment. In re Rockwell, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 307. Where a laborer, employed by the United States in the construction of river and harbor work, while off duty went upon a bin to talk with the man emptying gravel about going home the following Sunday, and in the act of leaving, voluntarily and with no emergency for immediate action, attempted to empty a box of gravel, and in so doing fell overboard and was drowned, the accident is deemed not to have arisen within the course of his employment, and compensation therefor is unauthorized under Act May 30, 1908, c. 236, 35 Stat. 556 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8923-8929). In re H. G. Simpson (Op. Atty. Gen.) Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 319.

14 Marshall v. Owners of Wild Rose (1910) 3 B. W. C. C., at page 79. Where a deck hand on a freight steamer proceeding on its journey, having just finished his evening meal and not having any duties to perform, accidentally falls overboard while going forward and is drowned, the accident arose while performing a service growing out of and incidental to his employment. Olsen v. Hale, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 607.

15 Moore v. Manchester Liners, Ltd. (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. 527, H. L., and 2 B. W. C. C. 87, C. A.

The accident was in the course of the employment, where a gangway connecting a seaman's ship with another vessel lying between it and the quay slipped while he was crossing it in returning after a leave of absence ashore for his own purposes, and he was thrown off into the water and drowned (Leach v. Oakley, Street & Co. [1911] 4 B. W. C. C. 91, C. A.); where a sea

employment where an employé was furnished quarters on a boat for living purposes, and after working hours left the boat to visit. a neighboring town, and upon returning, and before reaching the boat, was drowned,16 nor where an employé who lived on a dredge went ashore for his own purposes, and on returning in an intoxicated condition fell from a dock not owned by his master, before the arrival of a boat to take him to the dredge." This latter case is distinguishable from the case where a seaman goes ashore to obtain from himself necessaries not provided by the owners of the ship, and on returning falls from a ladder which is the only means of access from the dock to the ship.18

§ 112. Negligence and recklessness

That a man takes a wrong way to do his work does not show that he is not, at the time, in the course of doing it. That a man is not at any given time in the course of his employment means that he has for the time ceased his work to do something else.19 A clear distinction exists in cases under the Workman's Compensation Acts between doing recklessly or negligently a thing which the workman is employed to do and doing a thing altogether outside and unconnected with the employment. A peril which arises from the negligent or reckless manner in which he does the work which.

man fell from the quay and was drowned, when he was returning from a leave of absence ashore (Craig v. Owners of S. S. Calabria [1914] 7 B. W. C. C. 932, Ct. of Sess.); and where ship's steward, who went ashore with leave, returned by the cargo skid, which the crew often used, though they were forbidden to, instead of by the gangway, and in stepping from the skid he fell into the hold and was fatally injured (Robertson v. Allan Bros. & Co., Ltd. [1999] 1 B. W. C. C. 172, C. A.).

16 In re Jackson, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 320.

17 Berg v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 158 N. Y. Supp. 718.

18 Moore v. Manchester Liners, 3 B. W. C. C. 527; Berg v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 158 N. Y. Supp. 718.

19 Durham v. Brown Bros. Co., Ltd. (1899) 1 F. 278, Ct. of Sess. (Act of

he is employed to do may well, and in most cases rightly, be held to be a risk incidental to the employment.20

20 Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Co., Ltd. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. 43, C. A. and (1912) 5 B. W. C. C. 195, H. L.

When an injury arising from a risk of the business is suffered while the employé is doing the thing which his employment fairly requires him to do, he will be entitled to compensation (except when the injury is caused by the willful and serious misconduct of the injured employé, or by his intoxication), although he was doing the work in a negligent or unusual way. Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116, 96 Atl. 368. But in Wheatley v. Journal Publishing Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 110, it was held that where a typesetter, working overtime late at night, went out for lunch by an unusual way, over a freight elevator through a rear door used only to admit freight, and on returning stepped into an open space between the elevator and the street, his injury did not arise in the course of his employment.

The accident has been held to be in the course of the employment, in spite of negligence or imprudence, where a workman who, on being instructed by a subforeman to come down off a roof where he was working, for lunch, descended by means of a loose rope extending over the edge of the roof, the end of which he directed a fellow workman to hold for him, instead of using a ladder securely fastened to the side of the building (Clem v. Chalmers Motor Co., 178 Mich. 340, 144 N. W. 848, L. R. A. 1916A, 352); where a workman of an ice company was employed to see that none cut holes in the ice for fishing, but was not given any instructions as to methods, and, the ice breaking while he was near the center of the pond, he was drowned (Jillson v. Ross [R. I.] 94 Atl. 717); where an employé, employed by a brewing company to care for and drive a team of horses used in transporting a beer wagon, was injured by falling out of a door in the second story of a building in which the horses were kept, while he was preparing to feed them (In re Earl Puterbaugh, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 143); where a farm bailiff, who needed something from a cowshed which was locked, and did not want to go home for the key, imprudently got up on the window sill in an effort to reach what he wanted, slipped, and was killed in the fall (Pepper v. Sayer [1914] 7 B. W. C. C. 616, C. A.); where a seaman, who was helping to unload fish, swung himself onto the stern of another trawler in order to get off a sloping board, down which fish baskets were slid, so that it might be adjusted, and in so doing fell into the water, and died of the result (Gallant r. S. S. "Gabir" Owners of [1913] 6 B. W. C. C. 9, C. A.); where a workman, seeking to find out the cause of a leak from a tank, climbed up to it by an obviously dangerous way, instead of by a perfectly safe way which was provided, and was killed by some machinery which was close (Durham v. Brown Bros. & Co., Ltd. [1899] 1 F. 278, Ct. of Sess. [Act of 1897]); where a window cleaner tried to get from the window he had just finished to the next by

§ 113. Disobedience

Disobedience to an order or breach of a rule is not of itself sufficient to disentitle a workman to compensation,21 so long as he does not go outside the sphere of his employment.22 There are

crawling along a narrow ledge, instead of going back into the room, and was injured (Bullworthy v. Glanfield [1914] 7 B. W. C. C. 191, C. A.); and where an engine driver, on his way down to report at the station after leaving his engine, walked between the rails, although he knew a train on that track had been signaled, and was killed. (Todd v. Caledonian Ry. Co. [1899] 1 F. 1047, Ct. of Sess. [Act of 1897]).

21 McWilliam v. Great North of Scotland Railway Co. (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. 875, Ct. of Sess., and (1914) S. C. 453.

There is no provision in the Illinois Act taking out of the course of his employment one who is injured as a result of a violation of an order or as the result of willful negligence. Reynolds v. Mound City Water & Light Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 123. Where a workman is injured because of an accident that is the result of the violation of some specific order concerning his work, that may occur just before his regular hours of employment or within a reasonable time thereafter, in some way connected or associated with his usual work, and the results therefrom redound to the protection or safety of the property of his employer, or the act is in the interest of his business, such a person is not a volunteer, in the ordinary sense of the word, but an employé injured in the course of his employment. Casparson v. Munn, Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 151.

The mere fact that an employé is injured by reason of his own disregard of his employer's instructions does not bar compensation, unless the instructions were purposely violated with a wilful intention to injure himself. (Code Supp. 1913, § 2477m1[a]) Op. Sol. Counsel to Iowa Indus. Com. (1915) p. 24.

The violation by an employé of a rule of his employer does not necessarily take him out of the course of his employment. Skinner v. Stratton Fire Clay Co., vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 103, following Stopyra v. U. S. Coal Co., decided August 19, 1914.

22 Conway v. Pumpherston Oil Co., Ltd. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. 392, Ct. of Sess.

Where the employer, after expressing displeasure that a certain job of shingling had not been finished the night before, said it could not be finished because of snow, and told the workman to go to work at another house, but there were circumstances constituting an implied modification of such directions, and which, it appeared, were not definite or positive, an accident receiv

prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment, and prohibitions which deal only with conduct within such sphere. A trans

ed while finishing the shingling was received in the course of the employment. Moell v. Wilson, The Bulletin, N. Y., vol. 1, No. 10, p. 15.

Disobedience to orders or rules did not take the case out of the course of the employment, where a workman grinding tools at a machine-driven grindstone was injured when he attempted in violation of his orders to replace a band which had slipped off (Whitehead v. Reader [1901] 3 W. C. C. 40, C. A. [Act of 1897]); where one hired to oil machinery, but strictly forbidden to oil it while it was in motion, did so, and a fatal injury resulted (Mawdsley v. West Leigh Colliery Co., Ltd. [1912] 5 B. W. C. C. 80, C. A.); where although it was contrary to the rules for a workman to use any machine but his own, a boy in a boot factory, on being sent downstairs to have a sole remolded, and finding that the person in charge of the molding machine was temporarily absent, was injured in trying to do the work himself (Tobin v. Hearn [1910] 2 Ir. R. 639, C. A.); where a workman, with duties both inside and outside an engine shed, was killed in attempting to go out of the shed by a shorter, but more dangerous, way under the shaft, although he had been told not to use this way, and was killed (McNicholas v. Dawson [1899] 1 W. C. C. 80, C. A. [Act of 1897]); where a workwoman, hired to clean a part of a machine, proceeded to clean another part from which the guard had been removed, thus rendering it accessible, and was injured while so doing (Greer v. Thompson, Ltd. [1912] 5 B. W. C. C. 586, C. A.); and where a miner, who was ordered to abandon a dangerous spot from which he was attacking a particular block of coal, and to attack it from a safer place three yards away, violated his orders and was injured (Jackson v. Denton Colliery Co., Ltd. [1914] 7 B. W. C. C. 92, C. A.). Where a collier had been instructed to drill into the top hole of a seam from above in order to draw off gases, the seam in the meantime being marked off as forbidden ground, and asked permission, which was refused, to enter the top hole and see if the drill was running safe, he entered it notwithstanding, and was suffocated, it was held that the injury occurred in the course of the employment. Harding v. Brynddu Colliery Co., Ltd. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. 269, C. A.

Accidents resulting from dangerous acts in violation of prohibitions were likewise held to be in the course of the employment where a commercial traveler, on the business of his employers, in a railway goods yard which he was forbidden to cross during shunting, thought that the shunting had been stopped, and was killed trying to cross (Sanderson v. Wright, Ltd. [1914] 7 B. W. C. C. 141, C. A.); where a miner, needing a pick, went with a naked light into a fenced-off place which he knew to be dangerous and forbidden, causing an explosion which resulted in his death (Conway v. Pumpherston Oil Co., Ltd. [1911] 4 B. W. C. C. 392, Ct. of Sess.); where, although it was dangerous and contrary to their orders, miners frequently ascended, in the