Gray's Case
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the CourtDunn, J.
Obviously, under the statute providing for compensating workmen for accidental injuries arising both out of and in the course of their employments, an injury which occurs while but one of these conjunctive elements is present, is not to be recompensed.
The paper was breaking, to use expressions of the business, on the machine that the claimant was backtending, and he was trying to remedy that trouble in the absence from the mill of a coemployee called the third hand.
When the latter returned the backtender admonished him to give notice of any future leaving. Whether the backtender, who was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McNicol's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Coronado Beach Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1919
- Jacquemin v. Turner & Seymour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
- Baum v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- Stulginski v. Waterbury Rolling Mills Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Boyce v. Maine Public Service Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Horvath v. La FondMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
- Myszkowski v. Wilson & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.