Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co.

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff does not bring forward or argue any exceptions to the Commission’s findings except No. 16 which, he argues, is not supported by the evidence. He further argues that the Commission should have found that deceased’s actions were required in order for him to perform his usual job and were calculated to further his employer’s business. We overrule plaintiff’s assignments of error and^ affirm.

The question of whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment is a mixed question of fact and law. When the Commission finds that the accident did not arise out of…