Banks v. Albert D. Howlett Co.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1918
• Citation: 92 Conn. 368,102 A. 822
• Parties: BANKS. v. ALBERT D. HOWLETT CO. et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

102 A. 822

92 Conn. 368

BANKS.

v. ALBERT D. HOWLETT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 22, 1918.

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

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary E. Banks to obtain compensation for the death of one Rourke. opposed by the Albert D. Howlett Company and others. On appeal by defendants from a finding and award of the compensation commissioner of the Fifth district in favor of plaintiff, the superior court affirmed the award and dismissed the appeal, and from the judgment defendants appeal. No error.

The respondent employer is a Massachusetts corporation having an office in New York City. One Rourke, a skilled painter, applied at its New York office for employment at his trade. The respondent employer's superintendent in charge of the office was acquainted with Rourke and hired him to do some painting in New York. After Rourke had worked a few days in New York, the New York office of the respondent employer was notified to send some men to Waterbury in this state to do some painting on a building there in process of erection. Its superintendent thereupon spoke to Rourke about going with others to Waterbury to perform the work, which he said would probably occupy two or three weeks, and informed him that, if he were minded to go, he would be paid the regular price of $5 a day and have his railroad fares and board paid. Rourke accepted the proposition, and went to Waterbury to work on the job. When he had been so working two or three days, and while engaged in his work, he fell from a ladder and sustained injuries from which he died a few days later. His injuries were not induced or contributed to by either intoxication or misconduct on his part. At no time was anything said between his employer or its representative and him concerning the matter of compensation in the event of his receiving injuries, or in respect to the law which should be applicable in such case.

William B. Ely, of New Haven, for appellants.

Clayton L. Klein, of Waterbury, for appellee.

PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). Rourke received the injuries resulting in his death while he was engaged at work for a Massachusetts employer in Connecticut. The contract of employment between him and his employer was entered into in New York. In the latter state, as in this, workmen's compensation legislation was then in force creating rights and obligations arising out of contracts of employment which were contractual in their nature and capable of extraterritorial operation. Matter of Post v. Burger & Gohlke, 216 N. Y. 514, 554, 111 N. E. 351, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 158. The question here at issue is whether or not the superior court acted...