Metropolitan Redwood Lumber Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

RICHARDS, J.

The following are the undisputed facts in the ease. The petitioner, Metropolitan Redwood Lumber Company, maintained a store at a small town named Metropolitan, in Humboldt County. Henri Gireaux, the applicant for compensation before the Industrial Accident Commission, was an employee of said petitioner in the .capacity of storekeeper, having in charge its stock of merchandise in its said store. One J. T. Cleary was also employed by the said petitioner as its bookkeeper in said store. The postoffice of the town was at the store, and the said J. T. Cleary was the postmaster, receiving in addition to his salary as one of said petitioner’s employees a salary of ten dollars per month from the United States government for acting as such postmaster. The post-office seems to have 'been an adjunct of the store, and. the several employees of the petitioner carried the mail to and from the postoffice and the railway station. A discord had arisen between Gireaux and Cleary, the former having insisted on charging to the latter’s account some small items of merchandise, such as candy, which the latter had taken without charging himself. Some trouble over making change between the two intensified this discord. Just prior to the collision causing the applicant’s injuries he had carried the mail across to the train and was coming back to the store with the return bag of mail when he was met by Cleary, who was taking some mail to another train, but who, upon meeting Gireaux, without further or other provocation, dropped his mail and made a personal attack upon Gireaux, striking him. violently and causing the injuries for which he sought compensation. So far as the petitioner herein, their employer, was concerned,

[133]

the two men were of equal rank as its employees, neither being the superior of the other in his employment.

The Industrial Accident Commission 'by a divided vote made the award assailed in this proceeding. The only question presented for our consideration is as to whether the said applicant was entitled to such award as for an injury arising out of his employment.

[1]

While the authorities cited by the respective parties hereto from other jurisdictions are in conflict as to the right of employees to compensation in this class of cases, we are unable to distinguish in principle between this case and the cases of