Frank Stacys (dependents) Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1916-11-27

225 Mass. 174

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's decision that the employee's death arose out of and in the course of his employment, finding that crossing the employer-controlled pond by ice was the reasonable and customary way for the employee to leave work premises.

A worker employed at an ice-house died after breaking through ice on a pond while traveling home from work. The pond was located on the employer's premises and was under the employer's control. The arbitration committee found that crossing the pond on ice was the reasonable and customary route employees used to leave work and return home, that other employees regularly used this same path, and that an alternative route around the pond was impractically circuitous in winter months.

The court held that an employee's injury can arise from and occur during employment even when the worker is no longer actively performing job duties. Here, because the pond was employer-controlled property, the deceased was using a reasonable and customary departure route that employees regularly followed, and no convenient alternative existed, the death appropriately qualified as compensable under workers' compensation law. The court rejected the employer's arguments that the injury fell outside the scope of employment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an injury occurring while an employee is traveling home qualifies as arising from employment
Whether use of employer-controlled property during a customary departure route establishes compensability
Whether the employer's control over the pond and work operations created liability for the employee's death

Procedural posture

The case was appealed from a decree of the Superior Court entered under the workers' compensation act, following the Industrial Accident Board's affirmance of an arbitration committee's findings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Crosby, J.

This is an appeal from a decree entered in the Superior Court under the workmen’s compensation act. The claimant’s decedent was drowned on January 20, 1916, by reason of breaking through the ice of Colburn’s Pond in Leominster, while on his way home from work. Up to the time of his death, he had been employed by the insured in the ice-house, in the work of storing ice which was cut from the pond. The ice-house was situated at the southerly end of the pond and the decedent lived on Exchange Street in Leominster, directly north from the ice-house, across the pond.

The evidence showed that there was a path around the pond from the ice-house in the direction of Exchange Street. The arbitration committee found that the distance to reach Exchange Street from the ice-house by this route was circuitous, and very much farther than by crossing the pond on the ice. The committee also found that “the way out by the driveway to Chestnut Street and thence to Pleasant Street” was another way which he could have taken. The committee further found that “the employee followed the reasonable and customary way of leaving his employer’s premises. He and Douglass crossed by this way regularly and other employees who lived on his street, which lies in the same direction as Exchange Street, used this way of leaving the premises. It appears that the path around the pond was not used in winter. . . . The employee was on his employer’s premises when he met his death and was leaving those premises by a reasonable way. . . . Here there was no other convenient way of going home. . . . The pond was the premises of his employer, under his employer’s control. It was as a result of the working operations of his employer that he met his death.”

The report sets forth all the evidence material to the issues involved in the case. The committee has found that the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Industrial Accident Board upon review affirmed and adopted the findings and decision of the committee.

While the employee’s work for the day had been finished and he was on his way home at the time of the fatal accident, still it is settled that an injury to a workman may arise out of and in the course of his employment even if he is not actually working at the time of the injury. Von Ette’s Case, 223 Mass. 56, and cases cited. See also Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 263, 264.

In view of the special findings of the committee above recited, we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the committee and affirmed by the board, that the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment, was justified. The finding that the pond was in the control of the employer and that crossing over it upon the ice was the “reasonable and customary way” for the deceased to reach his home, and that he and other employees who lived in the same direction “crossed by this way regularly,” warranted the further finding that the injury occurred in the course of the employment.

It also could have been found that the death of the. employee was due to his employment as a contributing proximate cause, incidental to the nature of the work in which he was engaged. There was evidence from which the board could have found that Stacy’s death, occurred by reason of the special hazard incident to the work which it was his duty to perform. McNicol’s Case, 215 Mass. 497. Sanderson’s Case, 224 Mass. 558. Lowry v. Sheffield Coal Co. Ltd. 1 B. W. C. C. 1. M’Kee v. Great Northern Railway, 1 B. W. C. C. 165. Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Co. 2 B. W. C. C. 42. Ewald v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 70 Wis. 420.

The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Fumiciello’s Case, 219 Mass. 488. In that case the employee was killed upon a railroad track which was not a part of the premises of the employer.

It follows that the rulings one, two and three requested by the insurer could not have been made.

Decree affirmed.