3706 ARTICLE 101

This section referred to in construing Sec. 44. Keeney v. Beasman, 169 Md. 585.

The word "accidental" qualifies and describes the injuries contemplated by statute.
Geipe, Inc., v. Collett, 172 Md. 169.

"Heat prostration," if occasioned by unusual or extraordinary conditions in employ-
ment which cannot be regarded as naturally and ordinarily incident thereto, is com-
pensable. No sufficient evidence in this case. Slacum v. Jolly, 153 Md. 351; Miskowiak
v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 156 Md. 695.

Question whether death of employee resulted from accidental injury arising out of
and in course of employment is for jury. Nicholson v. Walters, 153 Md. 17; Southern
Can Co. v. Sachs, 149 Md. 562.

To put to jury question whether disease or infection was result of injury would have
been misleading, since question involved was whether injury may have started up or
aggravated disease so as to disable claimant. "Natural result." Refusal to submit to
medical examination. Dickson, etc., Co. v. Beasley, 146 Md. 574.

Under paragraph 6 of this section, it is immaterial whether occurrence was normal
or abnormal, and whether results were usual or unusual, if there is direct causal con-
nection between injury and disease so that disease directly attributable to injury.
Mental disease. Expert witnesses. Bramble v. Shields, 146 Md. 504.

Phosphorus poisoning held an injury in connection with employment within mean-
ing of paragraph 6 of this section. See notes to sec. 14. Victory Sparkler Co. v. Francks,
147 Md. 380.

Exclusion of employees who receive salary of $2,000 a year from Compensation Act,
does not apply to weekly employee receiving average weekly wage of $40. Meaning of
"wage." Koester Bakery v. Ihrie, 147 Md. 222 (arose prior to act 1924, ch. 217).

How average weekly wage is calculated as to members of the militia. See notes to
sec. 46. Merrill v. Military Dept., 152 Md. 478 (decided prior to act 1927, chs. 83 and
395).

The term "workmen" does not exclude from the operation of the Compensation Law
a person who employs a single workman in view of art. 1, sec. 8. Wheeler v. Rhoten,
144 Md. 10.

Variance prayer properly rejected. Conceded prayer. Non-reversible errors in prayers.
Kelso v. Rice, 146 Md. 276.

This section referred to in construing sec. 70—see notes thereto. Hygeia Ice Co. v.
Schaeffer, 152 Md. 235.

This section referred to in dissenting opinion in Gas Equipment Corp. v. Baldwin,
152 Md. 331.

One building his own home by hired mechanics was not carrying on a trade, business
or occupation for pecuniary gain within the meaning of this section. Clement v. Minning,
157 Md. 201,

The exclusion of employees "engaged in rendering any agricultural service," etc.,
from the provisions of this article covered person who worked on farm in dairy, though
not actually doing farm work. Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 290.

Death from tuberculosis held not to have resulted from accidental injury arising
out of and in course of his employment; inhalation of dust while at work of operating
flour mill, grinding and mixing poultry feed. Cambridge Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 160
Md. 248.

"Proximate cause" in compensation cases does not mean that the result must be
natural, usual or expected one, but that the result could have been caused by the acci-
dent and that there has not intervened, between the accident and the result, any other
efficient cause. Baker v. Knipp & Sons, 164 Md. 64.

Where contractor, engaged in moving house, arranged with a carpenter, who was work-
ing for the owner, to remove the eaves of the house, a task which required only two or
three hours, held that carpenter was only casual employee of contractor and not entitled
to compensation for injury received while removing eaves. Marvil v. Elliott, 164 Md.
660.

Where worker in quarry, on extremely hot day, while exposed to gases from explosion
of dynamite, had cerebral hemorrhage, question was for jury to determine whether it
was accidental injury arising out of and in course of employment. Schemmel v. Gatch
& Sons, etc., Co., 164 Md. 676.

Employee of store, who was subject to call at any time to go to store for any unusual
conditions, entitled to compensation for injury when struck by automobile while re-
turning from store after being called there at night, since the injury arose out of and in
course of employment. Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. Perry, 165 Md. 191.

Employee looking after horses and having his eye injured by pebble blowing in it
while shutting stable door, it was question for jury whether injury arose out of employ-
ment. Noyes v. Liddle, 167 Md. 335.

Nursing is not extra-hazardous work under the provisions of this article. Baltimore v.
Smith, 168 Md. 458.

This section referred to in construing sec. 48. Victory Sparkler Co. v. Gilbert, 160
Md. 189; Baking Co. v. Reissig, 164 Md. 23.

Cited but not construed in McLane v. State Tax Commission, 156 Md. 145.

See notes to secs. 14, 33 and 70, and to art. 16, sec. 38.