
    Siglin et al. v. Armour & Company, Appellant.
    
      Workmen’s compensation — Injury in course of employment— Motor truck — Driver’s helper — Voluntary giving up of seat — Fall from running hoard — Award.
    Where the helper of a driver of a motor truck voluntarily gave up his seat to girls on the way home from work and stood on the running board, and the truck then resumed its jo.urney and struck an obstruction in the road, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries, he was injured while engaged in the course of his employment and his widow and children were properly awarded compensation. ,
    Argued Feb. 26, 1918.
    Appeal, No. 12, Jan. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawgmna Co., June T., 1917, No. 265, dismissing appeal from Workmen’s Compensation'Board in case of Louise Siglin, Gertrude Siglin, John Siglin, Francis Siglin and Elizabeth Siglin v. Armour & Company.
    Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and, Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from award of compensation by Workmen’s Compensation Board.
    The facts appear from the following opinion by New-comb, J.:
    The referee awarded compensation to tbe widow and children of one Harry Siglin, who came to bis death by accident while in defendant’s employ. Tbe award was affirmed by tbe Board of Compensation and from that decision defendant takes this appeal. Deceased was fatally hurt by a fall from bis employer’s motor truck, on its return from an out-of-town delivery of goods, in . charge of a driver to whom deceased was a helper. He was standing on tbe running board, or at least with one foot on tbe board, and was thrown off- by a jolt occasioned by an obstruction in tbe road. Tbe driver and two girls on tbe seat were not disturbed by tbe jolt. Deceased bad voluntarily given up bis seat and taken to tbe running board, in order to give tbe girls a ride when they were overtaken on tbe road. That circumstance gives rise to tbe question raised by appellant, viz: whether deceased was at that particular time in tbe course of bis employment, to which some color is lent by tbe fact that of bis own volition be bad stopped tbe car, given up what proved to be a place of safety and taken one obviously of less safety, not in furtherance of tbe master’s business but to help tbe girls on tbe way home from their work.
    Appellant takes tbe negative and its contention is supported by a very able argument; but tbe impression remains that it only convicts deceased' of contributory negligence which can avail nothing in cases of this kind. • Had be suffered an injury while on tbe ground for the purpose of taking on tbe passengers, a different question would be presented. But having resumed bis- appointed journey, he was no doubt in course of bis employment thereafter, no matter in what part of the truck he placed himself. The finding of the referee having been affirmed by the board, the burden must be deemed to be on the appellant to clearly establish the alleged error, and of that we are not c.onvinced.
    The lower court dismissed the appeal from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was in dismissing the appeal from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
    
      W. L. Hill, of Knapp, O’Malley, Hill <& Harris, for appellant.
    
      Harold A. Scragg, for appellee.
    March 18, 1918:
   Per Curiam,

When the husband and father of the appellees was jolted from the truck of the. appellant, he was in the course of his employment with it. How he happened to be sitting where he was at the time he was jolted from the truck is utterly immaterial, and the judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned court below sustaining the action of the referee and the compensation board.  