The Compo-Board Co.

923 Ealt 3rd St Los Angeler, Cd.

Wholecale Only same thing, for the reas.on that if an employee is not secured in his cornpensation by an insurance- carrier, he ,can ap- ply to the Commission for a hearing and can also sue his employer for damages as if the act did not apply, with,the privilege also of attaching the property of hii-employer as security for his claim.

Factory and Main Office, Minneapolir, Minn.

(Continued from Page 14.)

T.he la.w further gives him the advantage by specifically stating that the presumption must be assimed taat ttre in_ jury arose,out of the direct negligence of his employer, and the.burden of proof is placed-upon the employir io iebut such presumption of negligence.

The empl'oyer is also deprived of his defense which formerly applied under the Compensation law, that the emp.loyeg may have been guilty of contributing negligence; that the employee assumed the hazard of the-employ-*.r,ti or firat-the injury may have been caused by the negiigen"e of a fellow servant.

The law states that even in the eveni of the gross neg- ligence.of an employee he cannot be deprived of iis right"s. He. is, however, -penalized by having his disability bJnefit reduced one-half. Likewise- if it cin be shown ihat the employer -was personally grossly negligent, the aomp.ensa- tron benefits are increased one-half.

A-great,mlny interesting cases have developed under this law relating to whetheithe particular injury sustained "arose out 'of the performing ,oi a service incident to the lltployment" and "arose in the course of the employment." The facts clearly will establish in each case if the iccident occurred in the course of the employment, but it has never been possible-to establish a clelr iegal ruling as ,to just what may "arise out of the employ,m&t.',

I am reminded of one interesting case which will define the application of this principle. In this case an employee of a garage was en.g'aged in rep,airing a pu,ncture in^a lire at the rear of the garage. Two men drove in the front door and ordered the proprietor to sell them some gasoline. He resented their method of asking for the gasoline and told them- that if they wanted any gasoline th6y would have to ask for it in a different manner. A quarrel ensued. which was participated in by the two men, the proprietor and an- other employee. The proprietor threaiened to call the police and started up-stairs to his office to telephone, one of the customers following him up-stairs. The-proprietor had a gun laying on hig desk, which'he seized. -TFe customer immediately turned and ran down the stairs, the pro- prietor shooting at him, the bullet striking the cement lioor and hitting the employee who was- repairing the tire in the back of the garage. This injury had nothing whatever to do wifh his employment, but it was held that the accident arose out of the em,ployment because "ft can fairly be said that to some extent the risk of shooting, hold-upsf assaults and the like has in recent years becom,e so .closelv associated with the garage business that it may be said that employment in such business is hazardous."

The application of the Compensation act to specific employments has been the lcause of considerable-misund,er- standing. This is particularly true when business is done on a commission basis. The basis by v/hich to determ,ine whether the com,mission man comes'under the act or not is to determine whether the commission man. is an asent or an employee. llhe method of co,m,pensation has no b-earing, but the terms of the contractural relations determine entirely. A condition of agency exists if no control is exercised over the representative as to time of employ,ment, place of em,ployment,,or method of employment. -Then the Com-pensation, act does not apply. If, however, the principal directs the employee as to .his territory,.his houis of employment, specifying that he must work exclusively in his employ, or exercises any other control over his efi6rts, the compensation act applies to the employment regardless of where the ernployee may be at the timc of the acci.d'ent.

Vision

I. 2.

The Ability'fo Sec What Others Do Not See

The Ability to See Further Than TheY See

3. The Ability to See Beforc TheY See

Thur ir dcfncd whrt ir probrbly the 3rc'tc't burinco erect of thc rgc by Dr. Mott, thc crccutivc hcrd of tbc lntcrnetionel Y' M' C' A'

The Tnining of the Fire Prevcntion Servicc DcPartment of thc

Lunbermen's Underwritittg Alliance

Develoos in its FIELD STAFF the power_to detect and visualize posiri."'"iinii 'i"PN5Et'tctrS, """tto"l'cd by -heedless workmen and irir" r"i"il1.-Glor. tt.v giow into ACUTE HAZARDS. It develops ;h;'o;;;;'l;-1";L u"vlll? the mere existence of the hazard and ;;;"iir; -itr.- ourtoMe. It develops the quick perceptionthe menlal alertness-which causes the menacirig condition to lnstantly ;;i;;;.;;;;-tt'" u'"in the significance of thi danger.which VISI9N grisps. fhe long chance taken in-perlr-titll-ns conttnuance ot tne f,"'"id becomes *"nii.ii to th. TiTAINED-INSPECToR bcforc iit i.iog"iti"n by FOREMEN or bv WORKMEN'

And what. do vou ask, has this power of VISION availed? Does " snvlNC-d"-lNsuneNcE PREMIUMS made and returned of iZ,Srir-,OOO -.an anything to vou? Qo-y-o-q sense STRENGTH-and ii6-atilnnEsS in ieaav- resources of TWO AND THRE-E--AV-4& fEn l,tlf.-LrON DOLIARS? Do vou realize that the ALLIANCE pnCir-n_CiIVb SBNVTCS has SAVED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS -oF-e-no-psnTY VALUES through FIRE LOSSES AVERTED? VISION p"v. HUGE DMDENDSI More than -l'200 LUMBERMEN ieceive iis benefits through the ALLIANCE. If you care to more fully understand our plan and methods, write