Tried by the test suggested in McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, 499, the injury seems to have arisen in the course of the employment." Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 165. We are of opinion that, so long as the employee while in the performance of the employer's business properly exercises the authority conferred upon him by his contract of employment, injuries received by him resulting from such employment arise out of the employment, and, if death ensues, as in the case at bar, his dependents are entitled to compensation.
Cottingham v. General Material Co., 50 S.W.2d 661; Kizak v. Medart Co., 93 S.W.2d 65, l.c. 66; Kings v. Mark Twain Hotel, 60 S.W.2d 677. (3) The assault arose out of and in the course of the employment as the result of the peculiar nature of the employment and the particular work the employee was engaged to perform. Cranney's Case, 232 Mass. 149; Hartnett v. Thos. J. Stein Co., 216 N.Y. 101 ; American Smelting Refining Co. v. Cassil, 175 N.W. 104; Verschlerser v. Jos. Stern Son, 128 N.E. 126; McNichol Case, 215 Mass. 497; Martin v. Chase, 194 Iowa 407, 189 N.W. 958; Sprang v. Broadway Brewing Malt Co., 169 N.Y.S. 574; Stark v. Wilson, 114 Kan. 459, 219 P. 507; Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 109 N.E. 951; Baum v. Industrial Commission, 228 Ill. 516; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, 40 S.W.2d 601; Teague v. Laclede Christy Clay Products Co., 52 S.W. 880; Gilmore v. Ring Construction Co., 61 S.W.2d 764; Keithley v. Stone Webster, 49 S.W.2d 296; Jackson v. Euclid-Pine Investment Co., 22 S.W.2d 899; Reed v. Sensenbaugh, 86 S.W.2d 388. HOSTETTER, P.J.
( Kimbol v. Industrial Accident Commission, 173 Cal. 351, [Ann. Cas. 1917E, 312, L. R. A. 1917B, 595, 160 P. 150]; Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, [L. R. A. 1916A, 304, 109 N.E. 951].) The circumstances are such as to leave no doubt that the risk of such unwarranted attack was one connected with the employment and directly traceable to the conditions under which the duty was performed.
Our own decisions have long since passed the point where it could be contended that an intentional assault upon the employee by a third person necessarily broke the causal relation between the employment and the injury. McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497. Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163. Harbroe's Case, 223 Mass. 139. Cranney's Case, 232 Mass. 149. Zygmuntowicz v. American Steel Wire Co. 240 Mass. 421, 424. Broadbent's Case, 240 Mass. 449. McLean's Case, 323 Mass. 35, 37-39.
eto all reasonable inferences of fact to be drawn therefrom to support such finding, and will disregard all opposing evidence as is done in passing on a demurrer to the evidence in ordinary civil actions. Bise v. Tarlton, 35 S.W.2d 993; Hammock v. West Plains Lbr. Co., 224 Mo. App. 750, 30 S.W.2d 650; Brewer v. Ash Grove Lime Cement Co., 223 Mo. App. 983, 25 S.W.2d 1086; Bolin v. Swift Co., 73 S.W.2d 774; Jackson v. Aetna Bricklaying Const. Co., 59 S.W.2d 705; Burgstrand v. Crowe Coal Co., 77 S.W.2d 97. (4) Dependent fully established her claim that deceased employee met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Teague v. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co., 331 Mo. 147, 52 S.W.2d 880; Keithley v. Stone Webster, 226 Mo. App. 1122, 49 S.W.2d 296; Gillmore v. Ring Const. Co., 227 Mo. App. 1217, 61 S.W.2d 764; Beem v. Lee Mercantile Co., 85 S.W.2d 441; Stark v. Wilson, 114 Kan. 459, 219 P. 507; Martin v. Chase, 194 Iowa 407, 189 N.W. 958; Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 109 N.E. 951; Baum v. Industrial Comm., 228 Ill. 516, 123 N.E. 625; Nevick v. Railroad Co., 90 N.J.L. 228, 100 A. 234; King v. Camden Paving Co., 168 A. 167; Todd v. Easton Furniture Mfg. Co., 147 Md. 352, 128 A. 42; Spang v. Broadway Brewing Malting Co., 169 N.Y.S. 574, 182 A.D. 443. (5) The words "arising out of and in the course of the employment," cannot be invested with a technical meaning, and are plain, ordinary and everyday words, and should be given their plain, usual and ordinary meaning, and each case involving their application should be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances, and not by reference to some formula. Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, 40 S.W.2d 601; Teague v. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co., 331 Mo. 147, 52 S.W.2d 880. (6) Where there is doubt as to the right of compensation, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the dependent.
The single inquiry is whether in truth it did arise out of and in the course of that employment." See also Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 165; Belanger's Case, 274 Mass. 371. Where an employee works in the street, as a teamster does, a causal connection between his employment and a risk of the street is not hard to find.
Under that act "it is not required that the injury be also an accident." Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 165. The interlocutory decree overruling the demurrer must be reversed and an interlocutory decree be entered sustaining the demurrer on the third ground, namely, that the bill with the exhibits ordered filed shows that the defendant Standard Accident Insurance Company "did not cover the defendant Galer against recoveries of a nature of the judgment rendered."
"Although unforeseen, and the consequence of what, on this record, appears to have been a crime of the highest magnitude, yet now, after the event, it appears to have had its origin in a hazard connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence." 94 Conn. 382, 109 A. 130, 13 A.L.R. 511; Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163, 109 N.E. 951, L.R.A. 1916A, 304; Munro v. Williams, 94 Conn. 377, 109 A. 129, 13 A.L.R. 508. A full note on the subject follows City of Chicago v. Industrial Commission ( 292 Ill. 406, 127 N.E. 49) 15 A.L.R. 588. Special note reviewing night watchman cases appears in 6 A.L.R. 578, supplemented by note in 13 A.L.R. 512. One case practically on all fours with this is Walther v. American Paper Co., 89 N.J. Law, 732, 99 A. 263. Without discussion of the governing principles, this decision by a divided court held no compensation allowable, on the authority of Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N.J. Law, 161, 95 A. 1007, L.R.A. 1916C, 1203.
McNicol's Case, supra. See also Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163; Cranney's Case, 232 Mass. 149; Marshall v. Baker-Vawter Co. 206 Mich. 466; William Baird Co. Ltd. v. M'Graw, 13 B. W. C. C. 233. As the evidence did not warrant a finding that the claimant's injuries arose out of his employment, the decree must be reversed and a decree entered in favor of the insurer.
" See also Panasuk's Case, 217 Mass. 589, 592; Young v. Duncan, 218 Mass. 346, 349; White v. George A. Fuller Co. 226 Mass. 1. It is settled that injury caused by an assault upon an employee, which arises out of and in the course of his employment, falls within the act. McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497. Reithel's Case, 222 Mass. 163. Harbroe's Case, 223 Mass. 139. Cranney's Case, 232 Mass. 149. It is agreed that at the time of the alleged injury to the plaintiff the defendant was a subscriber under the workmen's compensation act, had insured its liability thereunder, and given due notice thereof; that said insurance was in full force and effect; and that the plaintiff had not reserved his rights at common law.