Savage's Case
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Morgan v. Butte Central Mining & Milling Co. (Mont. 1920)
- Dvlinsky's Case (Mass. 1940)
- Gates's Case (Mass. 1937)
- Ferreira's Case (Mass. 1936)
- Herlihy's Case (Mass. 1929)
- Hawkins v. Bonner County (Idaho 1928)
- Ginley's Case (Mass. 1923)
- Chun Wong Chee v. Yee Wo Chan Co. (Haw. 1923)
- Fernald's Case (Mass. 1922)
- Foster's Case (Mass. 1922)
- Maronofsky's Case (Mass. 1920)
- McMahon's Case (Mass. 1920)
- Rochford's Case (Mass. 1919)
- O'Toole's Case (Mass. 1918)
- Bekkedal Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1918)
- Dube's Case (Mass. 1917)
- Interstate Iron & Steel Co. v. Szot (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Union Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. Davis (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Under the workmen’s compensation act the findings of the Industrial Accident Board are equivalent to the verdict of a jury or the findings of a judge, and are not to be set aside if there is any evidence to support them. Pigeon’s Case, 216 Mass. 51. Diaz’s Case, 217 Mass. 36.
The Industrial Accident Board made the following findings: “The employee, Joseph W. Savage, did not receive a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment; that his death occurred by reason of his unexplained absence from the car which he was engaged in unloading; that his presence on the railroad track was unnecessary under the circumstances and subjected him to a needless risk of injury from moving railroad trains; and that, therefore, the widow, Mrs. Eva Savage, is not entitled to compensation under the statute.”
There was evidence "to support this finding. The employee,
Decree affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.