Sawyer's Case

COX, Justice. This is an appeal of the insurer from a decree of the Superior Court ordering payment of compensation in a workmen's compensation case. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 152. The single member of the Industrial Accident Board found that on the morning of January 3, 1942, Chester N. Sawyer was operating a truck of his employer, the Tucker Transportation Company; that the truck overturned and caught fire, and the deceased received severe burns which resulted in his death; that the deceased was engaged in the official business of his employer on the route mapped out for him; and that he was acting under the direct authorization of his employer. He found further that the deceased received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment while engaged in the duties that his contract of employment required, and that the ensuing fire, which caused his death, was a risk contemplated by his employment within the meaning of the workmen's compensation act. Payments to the deceased's widow were ordered. The reviewing board affirmed and adopted the findings and decision of the single member, and found further that 'The employee, in the course of his work operating a motor truck of his employer in the latter's business was peculiarly exposed to injury from street risk, and more particularly to the result which occurred in view of the nature of the cargo he was transporting.' DePietro's Case, 284 Mass. 381, 385, 187 N.E. 773; Demetrius's Case, 304 Mass. 285, 286-288, 23 N.E.2d 670. The claimant in the case at bar, the deceased's widow, had the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury which caused the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment. Rozek's Case, 294 Mass. 205, 207, 208, 200 N.E. 903. The essential facts need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence but may be established by reasonable inferences drawn from facts shown to exist. Murphy's Case, 230 Mass. 99, 101, 119 N.E. 657; Chmielowski's Case, 301 Mass. 379, 380, 17 N.E.2d 165. The decision of the board is to stand unless it is unsupported by the evidence, including all rational inferences that the testimony permitted. Rich's Case, 301 Mass. 545, 547, 17 N.E.2d 903; Borstel's Case, 307 Mass. 24, 25, 26, 29 N.E.2d 130.