Fox, Rec. v. Slusser

146 N.E. 875, 82 Ind. App. 565, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 250
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 18, 1925
DocketNo. 12,177.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 N.E. 875 (Fox, Rec. v. Slusser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fox, Rec. v. Slusser, 146 N.E. 875, 82 Ind. App. 565, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Dausman, C. J.

Calvin E. Slusser received an accidental injury while in the employment of Frank E. Fox, Receiver of the Farmers Mutual Electric Light and Power Association, for which injury the Industrial Board awarded compensation.

The receiver contends that the employee is not entitled to compensation because of wilful misconduct within §8 of the Compensation Act. (Acts 1919 p. 158, §8020r Burns’ Supp. 1921). The In *566 dustrial Board found against the contention and the evidence tends fairly to- sustain the finding. Therefore, this court cannot disturb the award. Artman’s Manual, p. 93 et seq.

The only other contention is that the workman’s injury did not arise out of the employment because the act which caused his injury was done by him in violation of the order or direction of his employer. The contention cannot be sustained. Artman’s Manual, p. 60.

The award is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Motor Freight Corporation v. Jarvis
324 N.E.2d 500 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1975)
Ætna Life Insurance v. Carroll
150 S.E. 208 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 N.E. 875, 82 Ind. App. 565, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-rec-v-slusser-indctapp-1925.