Workmen's compensation — Accident — Death of Employee — Course of employment — Act of June 26, 1919, P.L. 665, section 427.
In a claim for compensation for death under the workmen's compensation act the testimony showed that deceased was caught between a monitor and the roof of defendant's plant where he worked as he was coming through the roof to the place of his employment.
In such case an award of compensation to the deceased's dependent was proper. The statute does not require that one actually be engaged in the furtherance of the business of the employer. It provides that the injury is compensable if it occur in the course of the employment and does not provide that it must arise out of it, nor that the employee must be actually engaged in his work at the time of injury.
Argued November 21, 1927.
PER CURIAM, March 2, 1928:
This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The accident resulting in the employe's death occurred at the building in which he worked, and during the usual hours of employment. The appellant insurance carrier contends that the accident did not occur in the course of the deceased's employment or at a place where his presence was required by the nature of his employment. These contentions are sufficiently answered in the opinion of the learned court below.
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County.