Burrell v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 04 August 1921
• Citation: 96 Conn. 555,114 A. 679
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BURRELL v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

114 A. 679

96 Conn. 555

BURRELL v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

August 4, 1921

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John E Keeler, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Alice L. Burrell for compensation for the death of Cornelius Burrell, opposed by the City of Bridgeport, employer. Award by Compensation Commissioner for payment, and the City appealed to the superior court by which it was reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Superior court advised to affirm award of Compensation Commissioner.

Samuel Reich and Murray Reich, both of Bridgeport, for plaintiff.

W. Parker Seeley, of Bridgeport, for defendant.

GAGER J.

This case is a reservation in which, by stipulation, the sole question of law is whether Cornelius Burrell, the deceased was at the time of his injury an employee of the city of Bridgeport within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, c. 138).

Burrell's injuries, of which he subsequently died happened on January 10, 1920. Then and for some years previous he held a position under the director of public works called superintendent of bridges. By section 114 of the charter of Bridgeport it is the duty of the mayor to appoint a director of public works. The director " shall have charge of all of the streets and highways of the city. He shall be responsible for maintaining in good repair all streets, *** and bridges *** of the city." " He shall employ such assistants, including clerical assistants, as may be necessary for the performance of his duties at such rate of compensation as the common council shall prescribe." " No employee appointed by said director shall incur any bill against the city without his written order." There is no such officer known or recognized in the city charter as superintendent of bridges. The director of public works employs assistants at the rate of compensation determined by the common council. The necessity for and the duties of such assistants are determined by the director; the compensation by the common council. There is no provision in the charter authorizing the common council to create the office of superintendent of bridges. By the express terms of the charter those who do the work in connection with bridges are employed by the director and their duties are determined solely by the direction of the director.

In 1900 the common council passed an ordinance " that the director of public works be and he is hereby empowered to appoint: *** b. A superintendent of bridges at $85 per month." This ordinance appears to have been amended from time to time, so far as salary was concerned, and to be still in force, although the city charter was revised in 1907. At the time of his injuries the deceased was holding the position of superintendent of bridges at a salary of $125 per month. It does not appear that the duties of this superintendent were in any way regulated or controlled by ordinance or by any action of the common council, nor was any term of office stated. The ordinance neither increased nor modified the powers of the director, and the entire efficacy of the ordinance seems to have been to fix the compensation of the superintendent, if the director saw fit to hire one.

Thus far we see that the charter, the original legislative act, does not mention any office of superintendent of bridges, nor does the charter or any other legislative act delegate to the common council the power to create such an office. Indeed, we do not think the common council attempted to create an office at all, but merely, in a somewhat permanent way, to determine the salary which might be paid the chief helper of the director of public works. The director of public works under the charter then is the recognized public officer so far as the streets and bridges, etc., are concerned, and there is neither in the charter nor the ordinance any attempt to bestow any portion of the sovereign authority in reference to streets and bridges on any one else. This subject is discussed in Burnap v. Water Commissioners, 94 Conn. 286, 108 A. 802. In that case the Board of Water Commissioners had, for many years, appointed a superintendent of waterworks with duties prescribed by the board. The duties of the president of the board were the supervision, care, and management of the waterworks. As to this we said:

" The distinction between the duties of the superintendent and those of the president was analogous to that between the duties of a mill superintendent and those of general manager, as those terms are understood in a manufacturing business; that the services of this

...