3700 ARTICLE 101

his dependents, and the amount thus received by the injured employee or
in case of death by his dependents shall be in lieu of any award that might
otherwise have been made thereafter in the same case under the provisions
of this Article and said case shall thereupon be deemed to have been finally
settled and closed.

In action by truck driver against steamship company for injuries sustained by him
when stevedores of company dropped heavy piece of steel, held that, in view of evi-
dence, the question whether stevedores were under orders of plaintiff or were acting
at time as employees of company, was for the jury. Ericsson Line v. Hawkins. 174
Md. 223.

Employee of window cleaning company, while in defendant's store for purpose of
washing walls thereof, being injured by fall of molding on which he stood, as result of
assurance by manager of store, entitled to have question of contributory negligence sub-
mitted to jury. Virginia Dare Store v. Schuman, 175 Md. 287.

Employer's insurer has direct right to enforce in own name the claims of injured
employees against alleged wrongdoing third party and this right is exclusive for a period
of two months following award. The Maine, 28 F. Supp. 578.

Damages recoverable under this section are measured by same rule, whether liability
arises under Art. 67 or under this Article, viz., pecuniary loss. Assurance Corp. v.
B. & O. R. R. Co., 173 Md. 251.

This section cited in sustaining claim filed under Sec. 51 on day before last on which
it might be filed. Greenwald, Inc. v. Powdermaker, 170 Md. 180.

Cited in Engineering Co. v. Hunsberger, 171 Md. 18; Ebert Ice Cream Co. v. Eaton,
171 Md. 31; Foreman Co. v. Williams, 171 Md. 56.

Cited but not construed in Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Baking Co., 172 Md. 27.

This section does not create new liability, but designates manner of enforcing liability
theretofore existing and changes parties benefited. Not necessary to make state legal
plaintiff in case suit is brought by dependents of deceased employee; jury may appor-
tion verdict among dependents, after awarding insurer amount paid by latter. Fall
of scantling—presumption of negligence. Clough & Molloy v. Shilling, 149 Md. 192.

Injured employee or dependents not entitled to damages recovered from "other person"
until employer is reimbursed for all payments under award, including court costs; coun-
sel of widow of employee in suit against tort jeasor not entitled to compensation from
insurer. Widow not statutory agent of insurer. Barrett v. Indemnity Co., 152 Md. 259.

In suit by injured employee against person other than employer, not necessary for
jury to find no action by employer or insurer was brought, if this is conceded. Entry
to use of employer or insurer; apportionment of verdict. Stark v. Gripp, 150 Md. 657.

In suit against tort-feasor by insurer, defendant's liability is independent of fact and
amount of. award, the insurer being subrogated to rights of dependents, and measure
of damages is same as if dependents had proceeded against him in first instance; De-
murrer. Parties in interest. Md. Casualty Co. v. Elec. Mfg. Co., 145 Md. 646.

Chauffeur of owner of truck while driving around city block at request of foreman
of repair shop to test repairs not acting in scope of employment. Trautman v. Warfield
& Rohr Co., 151 Md. 418.

Provision authorizing employee or his dependents to sue if employer or insurer fails
to bring suit within two months, does not restrict to such period employer's or insurer's
right of action. Concurrent rights of action; one recovery. State v. Francis, 151 Md. 149.

Employer, if not self-insured, not necessary party to enforce liability of third person.
Piling of freight. Contributory negligence. Texas Co. v. W., B. & A. R. Co., 147 Md. 171.

Effect of failure of employer or insurer to sue within two months. Md. Cas. Co. v.
Elec. Mfg. Co., 145 Md. 652; State v. Francis, 151 Md. 151.

When employee of contracting firm loaned to another company, compensation having
been, awarded against contracting firm and suit brought against other company under
this section, held question for jury whether he was servant of defendant or of contract-
ing firm; contributory negligence also for jury. Sugar Refining Co. v. Gilbert, 145
Md. 254...

Duty of police officer to use care in performing duties; failure to use such care amount-
ing to contributory negligence, he may not recover for injury. Collision with truck;
excessive speed. Sudbrook v. State, 153 Md. 195.

Contractor for erection of building, with exception of electric equipment, was not
statutory employer under sec. 77 of the employee of contractor for electric, equipment;
contractor to erect building not liable for injuries received by employee of contractor
for electric equipment due to breaking of joist where building contractor did all that
average prudent and careful man would have done to make place of work safe. Long
Co. v. State Accident Fund, 156 Md. 641.

This section contrasted with similar law of Texas in holding that Maryland courts
are not justified in enforcing cause of action which insurance company might have under
Texas Statutes. London, etc., Co. v. Steamship Co., 161 Md. 145.

Prayers and evidence considered in a suit under this section, compensation having
been paid by insurer of truck; error to grant instruction which on its face offers jury