Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co.

Citation92 Conn. 274,102 A. 604
PartiesRICHARDS. v. INDIANAPOLIS ABATTOIR CO. et al.
Decision Date15 December 1917
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Donald T. Warner, Judge.

Proceedings for workmen's compensation by Joseph Richards against the Indianapolis Abattoir Company and others. An award was confirmed by the superior court, and defendants appeal. No error.

The commissioner found: The claimant was a driver of the employer respondent, and on the day of the injury had been engaged in his employment from about 6 o'clock in the morning up to about 12 o'clock noon, during which period of time his work had been hard. Shortly before 12 o'clock noon the claimant came in from his route, did some duties about his employer's premises, and shortly after 12 o'clock started to take some beef upon an elevator which was used jointly by his employer and by another concern. The elevator was at that moment in use, and was likely to be in use for a period of at least 15 minutes. The course of duty of the claimant called for waiting until the elevator was free. The claimant, while waiting for the elevator to become free, sat down upon a nail keg about seven feet from the elevator and about four feet from a boiler used in connection with the premises of the employer respondent and in front of the so-called fire box of the boiler. The weather was cold, and the claimant sat upon the keg for the purpose of getting warm as well as for the purpose of waiting for the freeing of the elevator from other use. The sitting upon the nail keg while waiting for the elevator was a proper course of conduct on the part of the claimant. The duties of the claimant involved carrying meat, and he properly wore an apron which naturally became greasy from the meat. There was no evidence as to whether the door of the fire box was open or not. At the time the claimant sat down, and also at the time of the injury, he was alone in that part of the premises. After sitting down, the claimant dozed off and fell asleep, and a few minutes thereafter was awakened by finding himself afire. The falling asleep of the claimant was natural in the case of a man who has been engaged in hard work for the whole morning in the cold, and who at the time was sitting in a hot place. The falling asleep was not the result of any conscious effort on the part of the claimant, but came simply from drowsiness which crept over him as the result of his previous exertion, the cold to which he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Forbus v. Cobb Bros. Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1939
    ... ... 130 P. 394; Geibig v. Ann Arbor Asphalt Const. Co., ... 214 N.W. 90; Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., ... 102 A. 604; Bubis v. Flockhart Foundry Co., 191 A ... 281; ... ...
  • Curry & Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1939
    ...Mutual Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado, 130 P. 394; Geibig v. Ann Arbor Asphalt Const. Co., 214 N.W. 90; Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., 102 A. 604; Bubis v. Flockhart Foundry Co., 191 A. Perhaps the declaration did not set up specifically the amount of damages sustaine......
  • Gasca v. Texas Pipe Line Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 30, 1925
    ... ... questions of this nature: ... "In ... the case of Nicholls vs. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., ... 92 Conn. 274, 102 A. 604, and other cases cited in 10 A. L ... R. 1489, we ... L.R.A. 1916A, 348 ... "See, ... also, Richards vs. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., 92 ... Conn. 277, 102 A. 605, where it is said that: ... ...
  • Culberson v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1956
    ...357, 160 N.E. 397; Cleveland v. Rice, 209 App.Div. 257, 204 N.Y.S. 423, affirmed 239 N.Y. 530, 147 N.E. 182; Richards v. Indianapolis Abattori Co., 92 Conn. 274, 102 A. 604; Dixon v. Andrews, 91 N.J.L. 373, 103 A. 410, affirmed 92 N.J.L. 512, 105 A. 893. In some jurisdictions it has been he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT