Boyle v. Mahoney & Tierney

Decision Date12 March 1918
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesBOYLE v. MAHONEY & TIERNEY.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Proceeding by Evelyn C. Boyle, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, William R. Boyle, opposed by Mahoney & Tierney, the employers. Compensation was awarded, and the award confirmed by the superior court, and the employers appeal. No error.

The material facts on this appeal are these: The claimant, Evelyn C. Boyle, is the widow of William R. Boyle. On July 1, 1915, William was drowned. At the time of his death he was in the employ of Mahoney & Tierney. Mahoney & Tierney, as partners, were conducting an amusement park and amusement hall, and carrying for hire passengers and express matter in boats. They also gave dances in pavilion's on the premises controlled by them. There was sold upon the premises "soft drinks" by a person with whom Mahoney & Tierney had a contract that they should have half the profits from the sale of such drinks. In connection with the dances the appellants furnished music. The dances were given in suitable weather each Wednesday and Saturday. The music was furnished by an orchestra of three pieces at least, and the orchestra was supplied by two different leaders under a contract made for each occasion, two different orchestras being employed; one or the other, as was convenient, was engaged at a price fixed by the leader. One Webb Clark was employed by the appellants in the way of teaching the regular boatman how to run the boats, to keep the boats in order, making repairs upon them, and on some occasions running one of the boats. John Bone had worked for a former owner of the business, and spent his time about the property of the appellants, acting as watchman on Sundays and doing odd jobs. Tickets were sold in connection with the business, and these were sold by Tierney, sometimes assisted by his niece, who received no salary. Boyle's duties were to run the boats. On the day he was drowned he was in charge of a power boat, and started from a point on the Housatonic river to carry some passengers up the river about three miles. After leaving the passengers at their destination, he ran the boat to another landing, having in the boat a young woman who was not a passenger for hire. As Boyle landed the boat at the "upper landing" and stepped upon the dock, the boat slipped away from the dock, and he attempted to get back into the boat, and leaped from the dock toward the boat, and landed in the water. He caught hold of the bow of the boat, and the young woman in the boat asked if she should assist him. Boyle shook his head, and, dropping from the boat, began to swim upon his back...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Unemployment Compensation Commission of Wyoming v. Mathews
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1941
    ... ... (Calif.) 248 P. 1017; Dewitt v. State ex rel. Crabbe ... (Ohio) 141 N.E. 551; O'Boyle v. Parker-Young Co ... (Vt.) 112 A. 385; Fisk v. Bonner Tie Co ... (Idaho) 232 P. 569; ... period as the employer directed. Boyle v. Mahoney & ... Tierney, 92 Conn. 404, 103 A. 127; Center ... Restaurants v. Miller, 18 N.Y.S. 302; ... ...
  • Simmons v. Kansas City Jockey Club
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1933
    ... ... v. Industrial Commission, 140 N.E. 26; Gaines v ... Baird, 22 S.W. 570; Boyle v. Mahoney and ... Tierney, 103 A. 127; Hinds v. Department of Labor & Industries, 272 P. 734; ... ...
  • Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1932
    ...194, of 107 Conn., 139 A. 778; 15 A. L. R. 735; L. R. A. 1918F, 215; L. R. A. 1917D, 147; L. R. A. 1916A, 96, 120, 247. Boyle v. Mahoney, 92 Conn. 404, 103 A. 127, is of this class. These are therefore of assistance only through a none too close analogy, and the diversity of view exhibited ......
  • Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1932
    ...supra, page 194, of 107 Conn., 139 A. 778; 15 A.L.R. 735; L.R.A. 1918F, 215; L.R.A. 1917D, 147; L.R.A. 1916A, 96, 120, 247. Boyle v. Mahoney, 92 Conn. 4M, 103 A. 127. of this class. These are therefore of assistance only through a none too close analogy, and the diversity of view exhibited ......
  • 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