Fink v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau

7 Citing cases

  1. Desautel v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau

    4 N.W.2d 581 (N.D. 1942)   Cited 12 times
    Returning from lunch, compensable under facts

    Counsel for the respondent in support of his argument that plaintiff's accident did not arise during the course of her employment cites several cases from this state. In Fink v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505, and Kary v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 67 N.D. 334, 272 N.W. 340, the accidents resulting in the injuries for which recoveries were sought occurred after the employment had ceased for the day and the employees had left their places of employment. Both cases were disposed of under the general rule that an injury received by an employee in going to and from his work is not an injury received in the course of employment.

  2. Cody v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau

    413 N.W.2d 316 (N.D. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    " We recognized the general rule in Fink v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505, 506 (1938); Kary v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 67 N.D. 334, 336, 272 N.W. 340, 341 (1937); and Lacy v. Grinsteinner, 190 N.W.2d 11 (N.D. 1971). We stated in Fink that the general rule prevails unless the claimant fits within one of the exceptions.

  3. Aetna Finance Co. v. Bourgoin

    252 Miss. 852 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    Watkins Eager, Elizabeth Hulen, Jackson, for appellant. I. Claimant was not in the course of his employment while driving in his own car to the office to begin the day's work, and therefore an accident occurring on the public highway is not compensable. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Lemming (Ga.), 200 S.E. 141; Bivens v. Marshall R. Young Drilling Co., 251 Miss. 261, 169 So.2d 446; Burnett v. Palmer-Lipe Paint Co. (N.C.), 4 S.E.2d 507; Carnahan v. Mailometer Co. (Mich), 167 N.W. 9; Covington v. Rutledge Drilling Co. (N.M.), 376 P.2d 180; Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 224 Miss. 256, 79 So.2d 825; Edward Hyman Co. v. Rutter, 241 Miss. 301, 130 So.2d 574; Fink v. Compensation Bureau (N.D.), 282 N.W. 505; Fountain v. Hartsville Oil Mill (S.C.), 32 S.E.2d 11; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Compton, 164 Miss. 553, 145 So. 105; Grossnicklaus v. Big X, 355 P.2d 871; Gulfport Mississippi Coast Traction Co. v. Faulk, 118 Miss. 894, 80 So. 340; Martenson v. Schutte Lumber Co. (Mo.), 162 S.W.2d 312; Morris v. Thomas (La.), 188 So. 166; National Bankers Life Insurance Co. v. Jones, 244 Miss. 581, 145 So.2d 173; National Surety Corp. v. Kemp, 217 Miss. 537, 64 So.2d 723, 65 So.2d 840; Olson Rug Co. v. Commission (Wis.), 254 N.W. 519; Parker v. Film Transit Co., 194 Miss. 542, 13 So.2d 159; Phillips Contracting Co. v. Dependents of Adair, 245 Miss. 365, 148 So.2d 189; R.C.A. Service v. Liggett, 394 P.2d 674; Schumpert Truck Lines v. Horne, 227 Miss. 648, 86 So.2d 499; State Capitol Comm. v. McMahan (Ore.), 83 P.2d 482; Texas Employers Insurance v. Beach, 213 S.W.2d 60; United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Flannagan, 136 S.W.2d 210; Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 70, 77 So

  4. Welch v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau

    75 N.D. 608 (N.D. 1948)   Cited 11 times
    In Welch v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 75 N.D. 608, 31 N.W.2d 498 (1948), the employee was employed by the State Highway Department cutting weeds along the highway, using a mower drawn by a team of horses, which mower and team of horses were owned by the employee, for which he was paid an hourly wage for his services, and an additional sum per hour for the use of the mower and team. He was authorized by his foreman to repair the mower whenever it broke down and that he could make such repairs on the Highway Department's time.

    There is a distinction between injuries which "grow out of employment" and injuries sustained "in the course of employment." Kary v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 67 N.D. 334, 272 N.W. 340; Fink v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505. One seeking an award from the Workmen's Compensation Bureau has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the injury for which he claims compensation was received in the course of his employment.

  5. Johnson v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau

    75 N.D. 604 (N.D. 1948)   Cited 1 times

    When employee's hours of labor have ended, the daily work for which he is paid is done, and he has left the place of employment, a subsequent accident is not "in the course of employment." Kary v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 67 N.D. 334, 272 NW 340; Fink v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505. Robert W. Palda, for respondent.

  6. Groff v. State

    9 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1943)   Cited 1 times

    An employee injured on his way home from his work is not an injury received in the course of his employment. Fink v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505. Travel on highway is in course of employment if work created necessity therefor, but is personal if work did not create necessity.

  7. Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co.

    213 Minn. 331 (Minn. 1942)   Cited 18 times

    An arrangement of working hours to enable an employe to depart earlier than the regular quitting hour does not make travel homeward by him after such departure a part of the employment. Fink v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 68 N.D. 531, 282 N.W. 505; Hopkins v. State Industrial Acc. Comm. 160 Or. 95, 83 P.2d 487. As a matter of law, the trip in question was no part of the employe's employment, and his death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.