WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 3667

Industrial insurance agent whose duty was to collect weekly payments and canvass for
prospective members, not salesman within meaning of this section nor engaged in extra-
hazardous employment, and, therefore, not covered by Workmen's Compensation Law.
Stout v. Life Ins. Co., 173 Md. 277.

Orderly in City Hospital not engaged in extra-hazardous employment. Baltimore v,
Trunk, 172 Md. 35.

This section referred to in construing Sec. 44. Keeney v. Beasman, 169 Md. 591.

Outside salesmen, soliciting orders for employers, held not to be entitled to compensa-
tion under this Article unless they are citizens or residents of Maryland. Consolidated
Home Equipment Corp. v. State Accident Fund, etc. (Judge McLanahan, Baltimore City
Court), Daily Record, June 12, 1939.

When stevedore foreman, who was assisting on pier in unloading steamer, fell into
water and was drowned, held that since injury had its inception on land, case came under
Workmen's Compensation Act. Shipping Co. v. Royster, 148 Md. 444. Cf. Jarka Co. v.
Gancl, 149 Md. 427 (decided prior to act 1929, ch. 331).

General service garage where automobiles are repaired comes within meaning of
"machine shops" in sub-sec. 4. Wheeler v. Rhoten, 144 Md. 11.

This section referred to in construing sec. 46. See notes thereto. Harris v. Baltimore,
151 Md. 17.

Cited but not construed as to compensation to salesmen and sales managers. Weston-
Dodson Co. v. Carl, 156 Md. 536.

Compensation for injuries to salesmen, sustained by them within the state or else-
where, if residents or citizens of the State, and their employer has place of business in
State, applies only when contract of employment is made in the State. Tobacco Co. v.
Goslin, 163 Md. 79, 83.

Where salesman engaged to solicit orders from customers outside the establishment,
actually solicited orders inside establishment, but in ratio of 7 hours outside to 3
hours inside, held that he was salesman protected by compensation law even though
injured while soliciting orders inside establishment. Boteler v. Gardiner-Buick Co.,
164 Md. 478.

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

Cited but not construed in Arundel Corp. v. Ayres, 167 Md. 574.

Under paragraph 6 of sec. 80, and under this section, a claimant is entitled to recover
if accidentally injured in course of free transportation to or from his work. The ques-
tion of whether an injury arises in course of employment is ordinarily a mixed question
of law and fact; when question becomes one of law. Construction of English act fol-
lowed. Harrison v. Central Con. Co., 135 Md. 176.

This section includes drivers of horse-drawn vehicles; construction of sub-sec. 41 of
this section. Question of admissibility of evidence that employment of a driver of a
horse-drawn coal or ice wagon is extra-hazardous, not passed on. American Ice Co. v.
Fitzhugh, 128 Md. 390; Jackson v. Ferree, 173 Md. 402.

This section characterizes operation of motor vehicles as extra-hazardous. See notes
to secs. 80 and 70. Thistle Mills v. Soarks, 137 Md. 121.

Sub-sec. 19 of this section seems to cover road construction work. See notes to sec. 15.
U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Taylor, 132 Md. 514.

See notes to secs. 14, 70 and 80.

1939, ch. 465, sec. 32A.
Occupational Diseases.

34. Every employee who, in the regular course of his employment, is
injuriously subjected to an exposure to any of the occupational diseases
hereinafter named, in an occupation or process hereinafter set down oppo-
site the name of such disease, shall be deemed to be engaged in an extra-
hazardous employment within the provisions of Section 33 of this Article.
Compensation as provided in this Article shall be payable for disability or
death of an employee resulting from the following occupational diseases:

Column One. Column Two.

Description of Process or
Description of Diseases. Occupation.

1. Anthrax. 1. Handling of wool, hair, bristles,

hides or skins.