Arduini v. General Ice Cream Co.

CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHINMAN, Judge.
Citation123 Conn. 43,192 A. 314
Decision Date12 May 1937
PartiesARDUINI v. GENERAL ICE CREAM CO. et al.

192 A. 314

123 Conn. 43

ARDUINI
v.
GENERAL ICE CREAM CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 12, 1937


Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Dominick Arduini, employee, against the General Ice Cream Company, employer, and another. From a judgment setting aside an award of the compensation commissioner in favor of the employee, the employee appeals.

No error. [192 A. 315]

[123 Conn. 44] Harry B. Dinerstein, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Daniel L. O'Neill and John E. McNerney, both of New Haven, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE. C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

HINMAN, Judge.

The finding of the compensation commissioner, with such corrections as the trial court justifiably held warranted, discloses the following facts material to the present inquiry: On the morning of Saturday, August 8, 1936, the plaintiff was working in the freezing room of the named defendant. While he and a fellow-employee were lifting a can of ice cream mix, he felt a " snap" in the left side and said to his companion, " Gee, I felt a snap," but he felt no pain, it did not hurt, and he forgot about it and continued to work the remainder of the day. Early in the evening, while at home, he discovered a lump in his left groin which he reported to his foreman on Monday morning and was sent to the company's doctor for examination, which disclosed a " recurrent direct inguinal hernia with no tenderness or pain on the edges of the ring through which the protrusion came." His medical history revealed that in May, 1932, he was operated on for hernia on the left side and that on May 14, 1936, a pre-employment physical examination showed that the rings on both sides were enlarged. The plaintiff returned to work on Tuesday and worked all day, but has not returned since that date.

[123 Conn. 45] The compensation commissioner found that the " snap" which the plaintiff felt " is equivalent to feeling pain, when related to hernia," and held that " he felt pain immediately following" an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and awarded compensation. On the appeal the superior court held that this finding was unwarranted, that, instead, it should be found that the plaintiff felt no pain and that, under the applicable statutory provision (in section 5237 of the General Statutes), he was not entitled to compensation. The correctness of these conclusions is the point decisive of the present appeal.

The history of the special provision regarding hernia here involved, in our Workmen's Compensation Law, has been reviewed, in O'Brien v. Wise & Upson Co., Inc. (1928) 108 Conn. 309, 143 A. 155, and summarized in Clini v. New Haven Brewing Co., 119 Conn. 556, 558, 177 A. 745. The provision, first made in 1927 (Public Acts, chap. 307, § 4), was that " In order to be entitled to compensation for a hernia, the employee shall prove that the hernia resulted from an accidental injury, that inability to work immediately followed such accident, that there was not a pre-existing hernia at or prior to the accident for which compensation is claimed and that, within two weeks thereafter, the facts of such accident were communicated to the employer." The purpose of this provision, we held, was " to afford a means of assurance that, where incapacity was claimed to be due to hernia, the hernia really resulted from an injury or strain occurring in the course of the employment, [192 A. 316] and not from some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • In re Frihauf, 2256
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 30, 1943
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury". In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, the court stated that "the underlying reason for such special provisions (as to hernia) in this and other states is that owi......
  • BALL v. State of Wyo., No. S-09-165.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 22, 2010
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened, as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury.” In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, 316, 114 A.L.R. 1333 [ (1937) ], the court stated that “the underlying reason for such special provisions [as to hernia] in......
  • Ball v. State Of Wyo.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 22, 2010
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened, as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury. In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, 316, 114 A.L.R. 1333, the court stated that the underlying reason for such special provisions [as to hernia] in this and oth......
  • Liberty Mut. Ins. Co v. Blackshear, No. 14701.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • January 12, 1944
    ...Robinson, 149 Va. 307, 141 S.E. 225, 226(4), 227; Hay v. Swiss Oil Co., 249 Ky. 165, 60 S.E.2d 385, 387; Arduini v. General Ice Cream Co., 123 Conn. 43, 192 A. 314, 114 A.L.R. 1333; Rudd v. Fairforest Finishing Co., 189 S.C. 188, 200 S.E. 727; Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., 191 Mich. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • In re Frihauf, 2256
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 30, 1943
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury". In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, the court stated that "the underlying reason for such special provisions (as to hernia) in this and other states is that owi......
  • BALL v. State of Wyo., No. S-09-165.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 22, 2010
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened, as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury.” In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, 316, 114 A.L.R. 1333 [ (1937) ], the court stated that “the underlying reason for such special provisions [as to hernia] in......
  • Ball v. State Of Wyo.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 22, 2010
    ...it is clear that no other agency intervened, as to time, place, or action, to cause the injury. In Arduini v. General Ice Cream Company, 123 Conn. 43, 46, 192 A. 314, 316, 114 A.L.R. 1333, the court stated that the underlying reason for such special provisions [as to hernia] in this and oth......
  • Liberty Mut. Ins. Co v. Blackshear, No. 14701.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • January 12, 1944
    ...Robinson, 149 Va. 307, 141 S.E. 225, 226(4), 227; Hay v. Swiss Oil Co., 249 Ky. 165, 60 S.E.2d 385, 387; Arduini v. General Ice Cream Co., 123 Conn. 43, 192 A. 314, 114 A.L.R. 1333; Rudd v. Fairforest Finishing Co., 189 S.C. 188, 200 S.E. 727; Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., 191 Mich. 1......
  • 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