Prentis, P.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants complain of an award made by a majority of the Industrial Commission (Hon. C. G. Kiser, Commissioner, dissenting).
Meade was employed by Dreyfus & Company, as night watchman, at their store located at the southeast, corner of-Second and Broad streets, Richmond, Va., and his duty required him to be on the premises or immediately adjacent thereto. About 11:30 p. m., May 10, 1924, he was walking north across Broad street, at First street, a block away from the store, for the purpose of getting a cup of coffee at a restaurant about two blocks away from the store, when he was struck by an automobile, from which he sustained injuries which he claims-are compensable by his employer under the Virginia workmen’s compensation act. (Laws, 1918, chapter 400.)
The error assigned is that the commission erred in holding that this injury arose “out of and in the course of” Meade’s employment.
That an injury to be compensable must arise out of and in the course of the employment, is conceded, for so the act provides.
In the case of
Mueller Construction Co.
v.
Industrial Board,
283 Ill. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, L. R. A. 1918F, 891, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 808, the Supreme Court of Illinois has clearly construed this language and expressed the conclusion which accords with the almost unanimous view of the courts in construing similar statutes, thus: “The words ‘arising out of’ and the words ‘in the course of’ are used conjunctively. In order to satisfy the statute, both conditions must concur; it is not sufficient that the
accident occur in the oomíisqe^héddmc^l(lpmBj&, .BuiBfche causative danger must also arise out of it. The words ‘arisiBgííWtexííf’‘t«yefettilifo tiafi ripia eel amíimiébm-stanees under which the accident takes place. By the -use ^aislnatiákffflnéeBtoÉ«fls(!^qtheíl®feis-.l^M® M @3wpli¡p@H<ífh insalE^iba’lsáxiétlallchieC'ir dental injuries which might('4aa^peH:rIfo< ith©i®Hiiptoy,e,e ffeciSJJ^q^iS.eaia'lKftoxIsjudJi femplpyrnrigh)# aixd Qal?lf>ie.aste<Mrsmehnem#®yai^3aMíi?vRissfes ¡td $'lJHh |%Dg,®)^0^sa^|n;iferJfyKsiiuafeiediiaHfe ^,qu’all#í)©kí)@s@dK3aM &omff¿kp©eiali4e#h@3fte í#ib) pagjtódrtógr afiarmo-lW. WotdMtfeaíítrc®.MM^ááten3ííOh'áií\t9!l'8®^ Ji®4; rMú$%$$saY!-t
RMQMga,mi$.úgar.&Cé4
h§4 MíehaeBf^téSOkM.
•%8$q3$£>,
$J<iü.
J&íñ$J:f)ApM-0^Sictt>8W(ieiírM':t
v?¿'
Ivasca Co.,
140 Minn. 470, 168 N. W. 555, 15 A. {JCMft. BoiArxd.s9ilj6Ajfi40i,saíi!e gáihengiftfee maseseidiieh ^p®Qr¿tfÍtiM(tosti2.U<ítÍPÍi.08oi® Yjnpíi edit M;rí;í «,0Íf>íort These are the findings of fahkenr<roI<rjf¿i8> aAiheoM' "hi ea mit] #x.ag®Md3.4haAiaib the okmeupii this Jaeifiddfit, find vPJterc4J^r@íto.5nthe;ynj^mdfMAá4mrf;hejemií)loy bfetóe^fos & Company as a night watchmaai>,idn.s(idu.1^-n1b5ein^fctb 'M^fe#jí$he y huildingA ati-Anigh%d'hndh feat Eyhismaiveá'age ¡.FásJ hS£®Q; „rtha-t
M
Jh,é> iwaáOcré&sihg®éfie 4femcini.ty#.ofeth;a-fimplo|i§ii’ sifdac’d' ofedhsiwefes . d:TOn>g,th©might:-of M»3»'j@1%»15oñrt.d§s®Kpiijm pjfewtais ^Kltcfoandri|ii¿urédoibyAaniíi,ufe}moBiteri»¿andí>iliartj'!!die!:álh-íjuri'és rdesiarihsd'fhyi dhe; physipian,; ;Dr..¡ MafiGkpa?esultkd 'lit0P3í4hftiapcid©üteinfígnes.©oÉ..rfc; 'lo áno apiam* ahrtaw , es ntólfíurlliefMpipeaísifíom The testimony ¡pfidleadaÉm-
th4 claimant’s duties required hiña? at 'tintes* to bé on tlie;> o%t9idé'of-dKé building'1’ <3&■-\^'"'eiáplo^ie^í-aé,iMtli#’i watchman -and poster,’ and was on dutjr ábofio? S:3Ü’pl. ht:1 uiitil about;9:00 a. m. ItfurtheÉappearsthatitwashis' custom during the night to «aíc^tb'e’éfafeiÉftt^iíd1^1t¡W*-lu¿fehrooia,3 or 'irostaurant,*-ábbiititwo1 blo'eite !bélów]’ %r the' ¡purpose of1 eitheibgetting5a lunch or óf^getting'-mills oñj'cófféO'tOJOat^withhás'lunCh, and^tha# tMs!bÜsfOüi:waét wiéülqfenown'Cto1 ibis» ejáplojréia aluofSIb ed bkiow ti iíomw ••há,0n'4hefMghtí;oí'hisi>injtiíí^/'asíket^0ü'íbabo'vlJ/4í#'^affl crossing the street to the opposite giehbfbr1 the pufpO’ánS naeatioriéd .when;- he"» wás stmcfe'hy^n^atfédiiíibbííe i&d sustaihedi£thoihjufiesQnt(puéstimL?srjGíhappéársi fibih ffibf tebtimeunjl ofoBnoMáiídtípivabiawtóídéd íhíihholbiWfigí thdiiníur^,qthatuhélsustainct> adéoaipouhd'í
&hmk¥é
both Nones oB4hebightd% 'iustibuíow4hh'Slkeeban#- that a^aa^MtÍheíhafeTbéehN^ea@i®CeitoTaH^®§'á;bl%dVf4'&d'-Íp at thé presentdlfisfeii or.) oí íxiobioni
úsh &
ion ai jJoxhjí oí - s't'ilihesclaifflalMtihimselffi’dWstiaedíthkt ^htlrhá'tatráhPthí #hichtihePwa%pib^Múfgrdá'«Mbi&tédJítSat'4t§#M^p@9-' bleuíor. Mkh,«eváaYbMieii.t)Stb£!Ó'bá'#íf¥ thé^Sohlqof^hh-buildiúg-rándjthái Iretne^éffíhtaíNtheihabibbtfh'emalitíhgí in?the..rest'au£antí-e&éfepti
í^súmáty
Ifief-'peti'od' asehé meyéNatóihteíMncih tfffe#épbW-M>utd géSlít><#Í'tlh' mÍM2JOhcé®c¥mM,taMéíthéíffl3.bác1feíti tbe^builtling he i
'Me'
hisslunoh;- u ■ ©eí was¿ no b#$én *a) rueguM’ ®m§# hamfib^Nkb embldyerp búbffieinaMediónMutyj during hlih-h^itre^ahíeniabnedíat^á/ltetitóes/’ .•'tfíhoifójun bu* olqionhq se[r8}uItúsícfettaá>nly.iol5gt®J&Ófí®fthebé tacts duty a# aíMghtcwútchng.ahtdidíñdt(t5gfiui?r,eíhlQaiíjfo'>:®e'íiili Bifoad?stHcetlat ^thcsplaces^he¥@athe ^dt0fiQ.Hb'ílétstgu#fe bina ;iféhstoleBi«tithéipf«cii@^]fe©thi®atei3aÉpfiíWafe <áa<W persbmi3mxanrd,anfciwaá^«líif)erfoTaiIfig3U«íg §45vhSe«t^ básíáeBÍptoycd jprffatelMMLOdl lo íoaliroo exit TObmr ton sí Qi3SaexwkY6rityi®f4lie9(#ra9fefSMi®®h@ach®dithtoetfi#ifin'5
sion that his injury is compensable under the statute by differentiating this case from
Taylor
v.
Binswanger & Co.,
130 Va. 545, 107 S. E. 649;
Life Insurance Co. of Va.
v.
Wood,
7 Va. L. Reg. (N. S.) 827, and other lunch hour and street injury eases.
We find ourselves unable to agree that any such distinction can be logically supported. To engraft such an exception introduces an element of uncertainty which it would be difficult either to limit or to apply practically, and which would do violence to the language of the statute. x
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Prentis, P.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants complain of an award made by a majority of the Industrial Commission (Hon. C. G. Kiser, Commissioner, dissenting).
Meade was employed by Dreyfus & Company, as night watchman, at their store located at the southeast, corner of-Second and Broad streets, Richmond, Va., and his duty required him to be on the premises or immediately adjacent thereto. About 11:30 p. m., May 10, 1924, he was walking north across Broad street, at First street, a block away from the store, for the purpose of getting a cup of coffee at a restaurant about two blocks away from the store, when he was struck by an automobile, from which he sustained injuries which he claims-are compensable by his employer under the Virginia workmen’s compensation act. (Laws, 1918, chapter 400.)
The error assigned is that the commission erred in holding that this injury arose “out of and in the course of” Meade’s employment.
That an injury to be compensable must arise out of and in the course of the employment, is conceded, for so the act provides.
In the case of
Mueller Construction Co.
v.
Industrial Board,
283 Ill. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, L. R. A. 1918F, 891, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 808, the Supreme Court of Illinois has clearly construed this language and expressed the conclusion which accords with the almost unanimous view of the courts in construing similar statutes, thus: “The words ‘arising out of’ and the words ‘in the course of’ are used conjunctively. In order to satisfy the statute, both conditions must concur; it is not sufficient that the
accident occur in the oomíisqe^héddmc^l(lpmBj&, .BuiBfche causative danger must also arise out of it. The words ‘arisiBgííWtexííf’‘t«yefettilifo tiafi ripia eel amíimiébm-stanees under which the accident takes place. By the -use ^aislnatiákffflnéeBtoÉ«fls(!^qtheíl®feis-.l^M® M @3wpli¡p@H<ífh insalE^iba’lsáxiétlallchieC'ir dental injuries which might('4aa^peH:rIfo< ith©i®Hiiptoy,e,e ffeciSJJ^q^iS.eaia'lKftoxIsjudJi femplpyrnrigh)# aixd Qal?lf>ie.aste<Mrsmehnem#®yai^3aMíi?vRissfes ¡td $'lJHh |%Dg,®)^0^sa^|n;iferJfyKsiiuafeiediiaHfe ^,qu’all#í)©kí)@s@dK3aM &omff¿kp©eiali4e#h@3fte í#ib) pagjtódrtógr afiarmo-lW. WotdMtfeaíítrc®.MM^ááten3ííOh'áií\t9!l'8®^ Ji®4; rMú$%$$saY!-t
RMQMga,mi$.úgar.&Cé4
h§4 MíehaeBf^téSOkM.
•%8$q3$£>,
$J<iü.
J&íñ$J:f)ApM-0^Sictt>8W(ieiírM':t
v?¿'
Ivasca Co.,
140 Minn. 470, 168 N. W. 555, 15 A. {JCMft. BoiArxd.s9ilj6Ajfi40i,saíi!e gáihengiftfee maseseidiieh ^p®Qr¿tfÍtiM(tosti2.U<ítÍPÍi.08oi® Yjnpíi edit M;rí;í «,0Íf>íort These are the findings of fahkenr<roI<rjf¿i8> aAiheoM' "hi ea mit] #x.ag®Md3.4haAiaib the okmeupii this Jaeifiddfit, find vPJterc4J^r@íto.5nthe;ynj^mdfMAá4mrf;hejemií)loy bfetóe^fos & Company as a night watchmaai>,idn.s(idu.1^-n1b5ein^fctb 'M^fe#jí$he y huildingA ati-Anigh%d'hndh feat Eyhismaiveá'age ¡.FásJ hS£®Q; „rtha-t
M
Jh,é> iwaáOcré&sihg®éfie 4femcini.ty#.ofeth;a-fimplo|i§ii’ sifdac’d' ofedhsiwefes . d:TOn>g,th©might:-of M»3»'j@1%»15oñrt.d§s®Kpiijm pjfewtais ^Kltcfoandri|ii¿urédoibyAaniíi,ufe}moBiteri»¿andí>iliartj'!!die!:álh-íjuri'és rdesiarihsd'fhyi dhe; physipian,; ;Dr..¡ MafiGkpa?esultkd 'lit0P3í4hftiapcid©üteinfígnes.©oÉ..rfc; 'lo áno apiam* ahrtaw , es ntólfíurlliefMpipeaísifíom The testimony ¡pfidleadaÉm-
th4 claimant’s duties required hiña? at 'tintes* to bé on tlie;> o%t9idé'of-dKé building'1’ <3&■-\^'"'eiáplo^ie^í-aé,iMtli#’i watchman -and poster,’ and was on dutjr ábofio? S:3Ü’pl. ht:1 uiitil about;9:00 a. m. ItfurtheÉappearsthatitwashis' custom during the night to «aíc^tb'e’éfafeiÉftt^iíd1^1t¡W*-lu¿fehrooia,3 or 'irostaurant,*-ábbiititwo1 blo'eite !bélów]’ %r the' ¡purpose of1 eitheibgetting5a lunch or óf^getting'-mills oñj'cófféO'tOJOat^withhás'lunCh, and^tha# tMs!bÜsfOüi:waét wiéülqfenown'Cto1 ibis» ejáplojréia aluofSIb ed bkiow ti iíomw ••há,0n'4hefMghtí;oí'hisi>injtiíí^/'asíket^0ü'íbabo'vlJ/4í#'^affl crossing the street to the opposite giehbfbr1 the pufpO’ánS naeatioriéd .when;- he"» wás stmcfe'hy^n^atfédiiíibbííe i&d sustaihedi£thoihjufiesQnt(puéstimL?srjGíhappéársi fibih ffibf tebtimeunjl ofoBnoMáiídtípivabiawtóídéd íhíihholbiWfigí thdiiníur^,qthatuhélsustainct> adéoaipouhd'í
&hmk¥é
both Nones oB4hebightd% 'iustibuíow4hh'Slkeeban#- that a^aa^MtÍheíhafeTbéehN^ea@i®CeitoTaH^®§'á;bl%dVf4'&d'-Íp at thé presentdlfisfeii or.) oí íxiobioni
úsh &
ion ai jJoxhjí oí - s't'ilihesclaifflalMtihimselffi’dWstiaedíthkt ^htlrhá'tatráhPthí #hichtihePwa%pib^Múfgrdá'«Mbi&tédJítSat'4t§#M^p@9-' bleuíor. Mkh,«eváaYbMieii.t)Stb£!Ó'bá'#íf¥ thé^Sohlqof^hh-buildiúg-rándjthái Iretne^éffíhtaíNtheihabibbtfh'emalitíhgí in?the..rest'au£antí-e&éfepti
í^súmáty
Ifief-'peti'od' asehé meyéNatóihteíMncih tfffe#épbW-M>utd géSlít><#Í'tlh' mÍM2JOhcé®c¥mM,taMéíthéíffl3.bác1feíti tbe^builtling he i
'Me'
hisslunoh;- u ■ ©eí was¿ no b#$én *a) rueguM’ ®m§# hamfib^Nkb embldyerp búbffieinaMediónMutyj during hlih-h^itre^ahíeniabnedíat^á/ltetitóes/’ .•'tfíhoifójun bu* olqionhq se[r8}uItúsícfettaá>nly.iol5gt®J&Ófí®fthebé tacts duty a# aíMghtcwútchng.ahtdidíñdt(t5gfiui?r,eíhlQaiíjfo'>:®e'íiili Bifoad?stHcetlat ^thcsplaces^he¥@athe ^dt0fiQ.Hb'ílétstgu#fe bina ;iféhstoleBi«tithéipf«cii@^]fe©thi®atei3aÉpfiíWafe <áa<W persbmi3mxanrd,anfciwaá^«líif)erfoTaiIfig3U«íg §45vhSe«t^ básíáeBÍptoycd jprffatelMMLOdl lo íoaliroo exit TObmr ton sí Qi3SaexwkY6rityi®f4lie9(#ra9fefSMi®®h@ach®dithtoetfi#ifin'5
sion that his injury is compensable under the statute by differentiating this case from
Taylor
v.
Binswanger & Co.,
130 Va. 545, 107 S. E. 649;
Life Insurance Co. of Va.
v.
Wood,
7 Va. L. Reg. (N. S.) 827, and other lunch hour and street injury eases.
We find ourselves unable to agree that any such distinction can be logically supported. To engraft such an exception introduces an element of uncertainty which it would be difficult either to limit or to apply practically, and which would do violence to the language of the statute. x
In
Taylor
v.
Binswanger & Co., supra,
this court has said that “injuries received by employees off the premises of the employer in going to or from lunch, do not arise out of or in the course of their employment.” And in
Life Insurance Co. of Va.
v.
Wood, supra,
the Honorable Beverly T. Crump said: “The risk of going to lunch is not a risk incident to the employment, but is rather an incident of life generally.” And furthermore: “Conceding that the claimant was still ‘in the course of his employment’ while riding his bicycle on the return from his lunch, and therefore under the protection of the statute in case of injury to him from any cause, having its origin in, or reasonably connected with, or incidental to, or in any way arising out of, his employment, did the accident so ‘arise out of the employment?’ This question must be answered in the negative both upon principle and authority. As a matter of authority,- the eases hold that any accident occurring on the premises during the day’s period of employment or while the employee is still on the premises going to or returning from work, or using any special way or structure to gain access to the place of work, though such way or structure is not under the control of the master, may be made the subject of compensation under the statute. When none
of these incidents exist, all the circumstances under which the accident took place should be examined to see whether there is any fact connecting the accident with the employment. The fact that the immediate cause of the accident—as here the automobile striking the bicycle—was not in any way connected with the employment is not of itself decisive.
“What then is the determining factor? For that under the circumstances presented here, we must look to the character of the employment. . Was the nature of the employment here such as to render a risk from such an accident as may occur to any one of the public upon the streets of the city, a risk incidental to the employ.ment or otherwise? * * * *
“It is manifest that in the instant case the occupation of the claimant was not such as to require him during the lunch hour, or at any other time, to be exposed to the ordinary street hazards. Where he should take his lunch, whether or not in the employer’s building or elsewhere, on what street he should go, how he should travel, were not matters in any way incidental to or connected with the character of work for which he was employed.”
And in summing up the whole subject, Judge Crump says, further: “The chief fact to be ascertained, while stated in varying terms by the different judges, is whether the exposure to the risks of the streets was voluntary on the part of the servant, or whether it was incidental to the performance of his work, or in any way connected with it, so as to make his presence on the street a part of the duty required of him by reason of his employment. In the latter case an injury sustained on the street is compensable, otherwise it is not.”
We think it obvious that such an injury which occurs to an employee on the street, either while going for
•a Jíuacbíafrí,á)te:appoiiJ.teáiil'iia'ehilfe©OT, sayídchálet go-inii1 olit <o¡n. Meas street .‘&ix áy ir bmsthb ¿pl-keel oi< eiórploy mbtatj
icé >&
.«líL^Ms.eoff&’e iwittem there swás ii'oeappemtédiíkóxirithe'res--íbrjias fásí íbhei ,'eafsei here;'- íwas'-hot ákmidenfeatoto ‘dhistóñí- • jdó^icietttíí lidEheí oMiríánt’s^reseiiiGejiii-tlie .pfÉblie Street ^áskféá.'tirblN^ol'11'^9'^) and? the purpose ofr. kis,"érrarid was altogether persouáMy&HMae;%esú®0 tbsttoechgiards. of.: the'Street at' the- time of: thehíkidéht ;was¡ not sb:?ebn-hected with: his' employmenbpor .withnfcherperf ormance ■ M íhis^WiOrfc;tas31ífcoYmafeeohis>ilips:eneeíoÍD' thdfstreét any - ijjxaflft .ofthetduty required 'of.Mm kbyrlréasoUTofílMs emi-,pteyírn®hi¡to(| ihhérinjurye'W'.asteaiiSBd'dítyítheshabards
mí'
th®í'i?treetíiílprdeJsdiy-!>Iifc@ithío¿e to, \yliiehí±He pitblrc-;ge#- ■ erally is subjected, and whs ih rib T^kyrdfeebMyi®elated itoiJ!sá'pad.eds9áfcipL0yte@2itpi^salep'á asthltebstrexerything SmeiEfoeEsdtos^jiBa Bfiiatóoñoto his:íW0Bat}(»..*ííifflhe0>s'áine • ®há»n%geby(JwhÍQhíkhe'ian:hj®rtl©5tofetk® comahissioií jus- ■ ,.#fiedíáhéífe}lmya'nb&'ef:ícb‘nipehsat¿QÍi.:fe'tMs£'e.aseb''Wcaild logieaBy.d4ad,'to,::(sliph(fall.dwaTÍces)ífoRoae©fd:<$Qlüs' te^seml-jjaífopées&ihvthá sép&tsjo^ihsaí attendingíto xtheiritpiiwafe ■
-asmé
f^ísédnM'fléíSaiisimhi^háíaíres'iarirelatédíi'tecethefo'kemt ployerfe feásinefe •H'Spfe.aik-rhggeheEali^ aáhdéhtsforidhse-street are not compensable as arising out of thehihplp#-ípoienih) ,,<h#f>trkjse.ctódn*93ftpage?fi04í.oira
aihfiA
í5íIj|6] jítaLsiiatopossible tó distiriguishidiTd1 recaheilh cdfeof' tih^^gfees,, buhf#henehha]yfeedi;t-h:d cgncbusiounddditcdd •4'herefremhaplpeaESíclearíyto>.feéhathtet©axiuis't'jbeís©,fn7e--special tíis'káhciden'tttpitihejpaTtiémlhx bmpLoytoenttwb&ih ym/pogesi sota» greaferí-dáhgerüifflpoaMétepmílloyhéodhaJihfis. dhtp.o se d: up out :p ther ¡pfersonísi actuailljdhsíágf tfeásteEts» íto feifflaiiár.uBÍs|ssi [ibufe rsáherothdtsiíiieibmptoyM^n&iB®-poses théhlwpr&haBgitfíiQllt© phttkul^ixdaBigfersife étté--sÉrefefciáw yxjupsi jes dona Isdl airorrcío ti d/íMl sW [S]
4KKt~wwv*»xr4. > •-.tJf.~-io.Ja A_j... y#,É#Ml%cb;teteí>í^ to othe¥e@ay¡í, wMte'<J®fe¡3ei^4É.'fo|5Kye'f^it' tfei>á4iíag;iW©5esWM’3©'Jfc^'ilo|i.ío.d. eom^rpmjelife Mbáfes^ aMmltíoiíd'áíMln# tót^iié^se ■dMitefcrtfatl lÉtMffithl fúíb ‘'StlldMíífse&oíljeasaítibflíi» abeiábiife4cettr]fifíg'«pbn';®L^|>¥éiB?iéé's''óf>ftllefieiaplb^®i?.|J' ‘kJt&'COiirt ^ái'fev^^e^tbdsfc^-Wbb^énéPál^lxaYactQ^^bfi'Mdlé imdPí®Mii^iníwMbk ti^'db'feigbdi'ws;srei^tbd:'%t?stii'e tifflL©'ti)ífibli<0''aife1.íiS'íl,f>,1'íÍllé4á'tté3??®M'lfd'tMájrfebfiia(!t]fé;:é't»uíá#' 6#^mo&p%‘á#bat-oí'>tthé3©3Épl%5Mé!atf)^HS-a6hsa'ítíiptó<'-®>fli emplbyeetiastdid was^^M-tigas -íidií^ftlideíbbíjdiaáby'éiíli cfimátahcés 3 léis^rub^thatd't háé bfeéñdieMámaffiy ?tiiae's> ttoat? '¡Míhíe? áff. emípifoydr 4?é~ qáhsttívoB •¿btstbm^llyi/peímífé£:M§ñ''é®ip!tbyébs:fctO>i éM theiiemeatempdmMfe ípiefiíiSb^bb tamae pláób pi-óyidbd fo©'th¡8M',;i the í@áfiipibKaryji®tve£5P'üp'tioai.-to'*'tMlf ^bbte4hi᧠eaa%Bdwilli'Sb^i'l5e'i|'i,dgar(i,bdHa'S--<b&3¿ffiáulii$it3fgí1thbií'-ohaíís aeter as employees, or as exeludisg-dííem íMmí'tlhbipíb-i té©tibtí>bf-stieM avlaiW''-á)!?:j'0.iíir bbñdpefisaslMbía' * ]Mtmo;basethasd&éeiCéited bídottad-'wílfereíaii emplbyee' goingi.''#ób:gtié&D?ía;’p'Ccepos'b':tb£his<íldHfe'''í0F>©.th4r-p'labbíké4 looted, by him1', substándiahdigtanbe^away' írom '{the orbits of í his- employment' ahdfrotehhé émpliyei?’ s-~pr@íá-~ iseá, has; be'eir Regarded as sbíeng-ágéáih bhed&tte’r^bn'gN iress:dhát"an< áeéident;'’theñ-happ'eBSQgdtbíMM^:w'>buidlJb'é helíh tb • be- enejarMag oiiNbf>áad dm thé séb4rsfe‘-oí "hiff'bjií^ ploymént. y . Oa the¡ bóntraty yit 'hasibeeá^anifbtmíy(held thátíáfcdldmbfcsb'aiíse.’'^ '"da» ¡-¿id ou
mÁw
-so&wm 4ib 3 m 2íffihíg¡4tiesd>i'bm¿haá ’been pepea tediyhpasbéd?bb fchbaséé iavblYiagsíteels'>rftíite'biíailar’ttb4th'oábJ'.&ppearihgí:here. ««.>•
M m&B étU¡
^bdjád¡í>á. J>p? dSdl-d tS> Md®3 t i^Sl^M^hMh thé decedent, a' titíBery-WághiMedd^án’atttbfhbbilegháv-ing alighted from his master’s wagon whichwlagitaMb^ hinbafcmsiSs place of employment, while crossing the
street to obtain tobacco, the court there declared that it could not be said that the employment had in any way subjected the decedent to the hazard to which he exposed himself in going to buy tobacco for himself.
There are many classes of employees, however, whose duties to their employers require their presence upon the public streets, either frequently or continuously, and accidental injuries to them on the streets have been frequently held to be compensable. Among these are salesmen, truck drivers, messengers, solicitors, etc., who by the very nature of their employment are exposed to the hazards of the streets to a greater degree than the general public.
Chandler
v.
Industrial Commission of Utah,
55 Utah 213, 184 Pac. 1020, 8 A. L. R. 930 (note). The allowance of compensation under the act to such employees is in no way inconsistent with the refusal to allow compensation in the lunch hour cases, or in cases in which the employee is occupied on the street with some errand entirely personal to himself and of no interest to his employer.
There are cases in which awards have been sustained,, although the employee was at the time doing something purely personal to himself, and holding that one may be thus occupied during the time in which he is also on duty and in the service of his master; but this principle cannot be extended to cover this injury, because it cannot be fairly said that a night watchman, whose place of duty is on the premises to be watched, or immediately adjacent thereto, is still on duty and serving his master when he has left the premises to cross the street and go two blocks away to enter another building on a purely personal errand. This errand was neither connected with the employment nor incident thereto.
Our conclusion, then, is to reverse the order of the Commission.
Reversed.