Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHoward, Michael D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-11T21:25:30Z
dc.date.available2013-02-11T21:25:30Z
dc.date.issued1970en_US
dc.identifier.citation3 Creighton L. Rev. 341 (1969-1970)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/38647
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|When the employee is indisputably engaged in "work connected" activity, workmen's compensation acts have, generally, fulfilled their promise of "providing, in the most efficient, most dignified, and most certain form, financial and medical benefits for the victims of work-connected injuries .... However, as the employee's activities become more remotely connected with his work, perplexing problems of the extent of coverage arise. Particularly puzzling among the periphery of compensable work connected claims are those arising from injuries suffered by the employee when coming to the rescue of someone who is a stranger both to himself and his employer...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleWorkmen's Compensation - Employee Rescue of a Stranger - Ostensibly Different Standards of Recovery Create Unnecessary Uncertainty of Compensation - Reilly v. Weber Engineering Co., 107 N.J. Super. 254, 258 A.2d 36 (Essex County Ct. 1969) and Lennon Co. v. Ridge, 219 Tenn. 623, 412 S.W.2d 638 (1967)en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume3en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1969-1970en_US
dc.description.pages341en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record