Brousseau v. Blackstone Mills, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.
There are literally hundreds of cases that purport to lay down a general going-and-coming rule to the effect that injury sustained going to and from work does not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 288 U. S. 162; Moosebrugger v. Prospect Presbyterian Church, 12 N. J. 212; Riesenfeld, Forty Years of American Workmen’s Compensation, 35 Minn. L. Rev. 525, 544. The so-called rule has proved to be of doubtful utility and is riddled with various exceptions. “However, the rule as originally laid down was soon discovered to be an unjust one when applied in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Voehl v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Barnett v. Britling Cafeteria Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Bales, Admx. v. Service Club No. 1, Camp ChaffeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Smith v. Camel Mfg. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Hornyak v. the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Heinz v. Concord Union School DistrictSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- Gallart Mendía v. Comisión IndustrialSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
- Hornyak v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.