Lancaster v. Celanese Corp. of America

Sloan, T., delivered the opinion of the Court. There was one issue submitted at the trial of the appeal before the Circuit Court for Allegany County, and that was whether the death of Henry E. Lancaster was the result of ⁵¹⁷ an accidental injury which, arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Celanese Corporation of America, on which the jury was directed to answer “Xo.” The claim had been rejected by the State Accident Commission, and appealed by the employee’s widow and dependent, who appeals to this court. Henry E. Lancaster, who resided at Eekhart Mines in Allegany County, had worked for some time as a carpenter at the works of the Celanese Corporation of America about four miles westward of Cumberland on the Oresaptown Eoad. On the afternoon of September 3rd, 1931, he had checked out at the end of the day’s work at 4.32 o’clock, and walked to the gate and through it to the state road to take, as was his custom, a bus of the Cumberland & Westernport Transit Company to his home.

Apparently he was headed for the opposite side of the road, and just as he was about to step on the paved portion of the road he walked into and put his head through the window of a passing automobile, and had his throat so badly cut that he died a few minutes after being taken to a hospital at Cumberland. The evidence is that the conveyance which the employee was about to board, and in which he habitually rode to and from work, was that of a common carrier, not provided by the employer, and to which the employee paid his fare. At the time of the accident, there were about three thousand persons employed at the Celanese works, and the deceased was one of about a thousand quitting his shift. There was some hurry and confusion, for which in some unexplained way the appellant argued that the employer might be responsible, though we are at a loss to see what duty the employer assumed, or for which it was responsible.

The day’s work was done, and the employee assumed the accustomed task of going home. The burden of proof was upon the appellant, who was also the appellant on appeal to the circuit