Cited by

2 L. 1923, c. 300, § 14, enacted in response to this court’s decision in Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165 (1920), provides a narrow exception to the well-settled rule that employees who commute to a fixed place of work cannot collect for injuries received while commuting.

In Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165 (1920), a personal injury action, this court sustained a verdict in favor of an employee who had been injured while being transported in the employer’s truck from the streetcar terminal point to the employer’s premises, notwithstanding the fact that the employer, by the employment con

Co. 193 Minn. 169 , ; Helfrich v. Roth, 193 Minn. 107 , ; Kelley v. The Northwest Paper Co. 190 Minn. 291 , ; Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165; Erickson v. St.

3 Helfrich v. Roth, 193 Minn. 107 , ; Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165; Otto v. Duluth St.

Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165; Som- *424 mers v. Schuler Chocolates, Inc. 239 Minn. 180 , 58 N. W. (2d) 194 ; Anderson v. Massachusetts Real Estate Co. 221 Minn. 593 , 22 N. W. (2d) 680 .

The italicized portion of the above statute was added by L. 1923, c. 300, § 14, so as to temper the holding of Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, which construed the more restrictive clause of the former statute which then provided that to be compensable the injury had to occur while the employee was “engaged in, on, or about the premises * * V’ 1 On the day in question the time for which the employee was paid terminated at 7:

Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , ; Koubek v. Gerens, 147 Minn. 366 , ; Helfrich v. Roth, 193 Minn. 107 , .

Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , *595 10 A. L. R. 165.

Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 213 Minn. 331 , 6 N. W. (2d) 812 ; Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn; 286, , 10 A. L. R. 165.

The italicized portion of the statute came into our law by L. 1923, c. 300, § 14, an amendment brought about by the decision of this court in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, where the holding was against the claimant because, under the restrictive clause of the statute, the liability of the employer was not intended to include workmen injured “except while engaged in, on, or about the premises” of the employer.

The proviso was added to provide coverage where the employer regularly furnishes transportation to his employes to and from the place of employment after our decision to the contrary in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165.

The restriction in the workmen’s compensation act to accidental injuries received on the premises where the work was being done or where his services required his presence and during the hours of service, as construed in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, was removed by the legislature that convened after that decision was published, by adding the proviso “that where the employer regularly furnishes transportation to his employes to or from the place of emplo

In Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286, 289-290 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, the court quotes with approval the rule laid down in Podgorski v. Kerwin, 144 Minn. 313, 317 , , as follows: “It is a well settled general rule- that an injury suffered by an employe, in going to or returning from the employer’s premises where the work of

uch workmen; provided, that where the employer regularly furnishes transportation to his employes to or from the place of employment, such employes shall be held to be subject to this act while being so transported, * * The italicized portion of the above quotation came into the act by L. 1923, c. 300, and was apparently enacted because of the decision *558 in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , .

time of the injury, and during the hours of service as such workmen; provided, that where the employer regularly furnishes transportation to his employes to or from the place of employment, such employes shall be held to be subject to this act while being so transported.” The proviso came into the statute by L. 1923, c. 300, probably because of our decision in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165.

Prior to the amendment we held in Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, that an accident sustained by a workman riding to his place of work in a conveyance furnished by his employer in compliance with one of the terms of the contract of employment, but in which the workman was not directed or required to ride, did not arise out of and in the course of hi

It may be conceded that it was enacted because of Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, and that it permits compensation in such a case as that.

Of the cases cited for respondents, Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, is, in its rationale, most closely in point.

Co. 125 Minn. 74 , , L. R. A. 1918D, 355; Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165.

include injuries received by, an employe while off- and not about his employer’s premises and on his way to or from the place of employment, unless the employer regularly furnishes transportation to his employes to or from the place of employment, etc. Section 4326(j), G. S. 1923; Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165; Otto v. Duluth St.

Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165.

Co. 141 Minn. 166 , , and Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , , 10 A. L. R. 165, are not out of harmony with this decision.

Co. 141 Minn. 166 , ; Podgorski v. Kerwin, 144 Minn. 313 , ; State v. District Court of Hennepin County, 144 Minn. 259 , ; Nesbitt v. Twin City F. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 286 , .