Marion Malleable Iron Works v. Ford

*154 Dausman, J. (after making the foregoing statement) : *155 *154 If, at the time of the injury resulting in his death, the workman was doing what he might reasonably do, *155 or what he might reasonably have been expected to do, then his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Union Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Davis (1917), 64 Ind. App. 227. We must keep in mind that the severance of the high-voltage wire and the falling of the two parts thereof created a condition of grave peril. The moment was one of excitement. Life and property were endangered. A man with a team of horses had approached, and it was only natural that others might soon approach the scene of danger suddenly created in a public street. In getting down from, the crane and going upon the street to remove the source of the danger, the workman was acting in obedience to a natural and commendable impulse. Surely he was not censurable for removing the blazing wire from the street; for in so doing he was obeying the direction of his superior. The legitimate inference is that he believed that the other wire was not electrified. The uncontradicted evidence is that the wire was insulated, but the insulation was somewhat deteriorated. When he grasped the wire in his hand, he encountered a hazard the seriousness of which he probably did not appreciate. The fatal consequence makes it clear that he exercised bad judgment. He may have been negligent; but negligence does not count in the compensation plan. At this point certain questions arise spontaneously. Was the wire electrified when he picked it up? Was the current turned on after he had wrapped the wire twice around the post? Was the post electrified by some other wire? The evidence furnishes no answer. There is another element which must not be overlooked. It is a legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the evidence that it was necessary to remove the wires from the railway tracks before the workman could pro *156 ceed to discharge his regular duties. In that event, he was pursuing the line of his employment. Whether the conduct of the workman was reasonable, in view of all the circumstances, was primarily a question for the Industrial Board. That question the board has determined and we would not be justified in disturbing its conclusion. The award is affirmed. Nichols, J., not participating.