Legal Opinion
Hufford v. Livingston
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided December 8, 1922No. 11,489PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dausman, J.,
after making the foregoing statement:
It is obvious that the Industrial Board was justified in finding that the workman received his injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In other words, that finding is a legitimate conclusion drawn from the evidence. It may be that the workman manifested very poor judg*524ment in determining the manner and method of oiling the machine, and it may be that his conduct in that respect was negligent; but the element of negligence has no place in the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Nordyke, etc., Co. v. Swift (1919), 71 Ind.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Empire Health & Accident Insurance v. PurcellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- Muncie Foundry & Machine Co. v. ThompsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919
- Inland Steel Co. v. LambertIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
- Nordyke & Marmon Co. v. SwiftIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919
- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. TotzkeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Czuczko v. Golden-Gary Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1931
- Livers v. Graham Glass Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1931
- Motor Freight Corporation v. JarvisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975
- American Chain Co. v. SaltersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1923
- Finkley v. Eugene Saenger Tailoring ShopIndiana Court of Appeals · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.