Cited by

Chagnon v. Union Leader Corp., 104 N.H. 472, 474 (1963), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236 (1966) (explaining that legislative “intent, rather than any arbitrary canons of statutory construction, is controlling”).

Chagnon v. Union-Leader Co., 104 N.H. 472, 474 (1963), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 241 (1966).

Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 241 (1966); N.H.S.

Chagnon v. Union-Leader Co., 104 N.H. 472, 474 (1963) (legislative intent, not arbitrary *615 canons of statutory construction, is controlling), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236 (1966).

See, e.g., Maheux v. Cove-Craft Co., 103 N.H. 71, 74 (1960); Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 237-38 (1966).

Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 238-39 (1966).

contained no provision expressed or reasonably to be implied that interest was to be allowed,” Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 240, 221 A.2d 246, 249 (1966), wage claims, unlike workers’ compensation claims, existed at common law.

oyment by demonstrating that (A) it occurred within the boundaries of time and space created by the terms of employment, Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); and (B) it occurred in the performance of an activity related to employment, which may include a personal activity if reasonably expected and not forbidden, see Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 238-39, 221 A.2d 246, 247 (1966); or an activity of mutual benefit to employer and empl

Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 238-39, 221 A.2d 246, 247-48 (1966).

t by demonstrating that (A) it occurred within the boundaries of time and space created by the terms of employment, Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); and (B) it occurred in the performance of an activity related to employment, which may include a personal activity if reasonably expected and not forbidden, see Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., *646 107 N.H. 236, 238-39, 221 A.2d 246, 247 (1966); Maheux v. Cove-Craft Co., supra at 74, 164 A.2d at 57

rights,” Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 240, 221 A.2d 246, 249 (1966), and we cannot “read words into [the statute] which the legislature did not see fit to insert.” Gregory v. State, 117 N.H. 62, 63, 369 A.2d 181, 181-82 (1977).

t the injury arose in the course of employment: that the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of employment, see Heinz v. Concord Union School Dist., 117 N.H. 214, 218, 371 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1977); United States F. & G. Co. v. Gagne, 103 N.H. 420, 423, 174 A.2d 406, 408 (1961), and during an activity whose purpose was related to employment, see Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 238-39, 221 A.2d 246, 247 (1966); Maltais v. Assurance Society, 93 N.H. 237, 240, 40 A.

Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 221 A.2d 246 (1966).

Laws 1963, ch. 293; RSA 524:1-b (supp.) Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co., 107 N.H. 236, 241, 221 A.2d 246, 249 (1966); Pepin v. Beaulieu, 102 N.H. 84, 89, 151 A.2d 230, 235 (1959).

Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Company, 107 N.H. 236, 221 A.2d 246 (1966).