Industrial Commission v. Weigandt

Citations

• 102 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1

Syllabus

<p>Workmen's compensation — Course of employment — Injury results from scuffle between fellow workmen — Facts determining right to award — Relation of injury to employment — Scope and purpose of compensation act.</p> <p>1. While an employe in compliance with his duty was in the factory where he was employed going to his machine, he was struck in the eye and injured by a file which flew from its handlé during a friendly scuffle for it by two other employes. Held; The injury was one occasioned in the course of the workman’s employment within the Workmen’s Compensation Law.</p> <p>2. .The test of right to award from the insurance fund under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for injury in the course of employment, is not whether there was any fault or neglect on the part of the employer, or his employes, but whether the em- • ployment had some causal connection with the injury, either through its activities, its conditions or its environments.</p> <p>3. The provisions of the law do not cover an injury which had its cause outside of and disconnected with the business in which an injured workman was employed. (Fassig v. The State, ex rel., 95 Ohio St., 232, approved and followed.)</p> <p>4. The statute was intended to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy as a substitute for previous unsatisfactory methods, and should be liberally construed in favor of employes.</p>