Chaves v. Weeks
| Decision Date | 28 June 1922 |
| Citation | 242 Mass. 156,136 N.E. 73 |
| Parties | CHAVES v. WEEKS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; George A. Flynn, Judge.
Action by Clara E. Chaves, administratrix, against J. Frank Weeks, for death and conscious suffering. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The action was brought by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the name of the administratrix, it having paid compensation for the injuries causing the death under St. 1911, c. 751, St. 1913, c. 448. The answer, besides a general denial and an allegation of contributory negligence, alleged that plaintiff had elected to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and had been paid such compensation. On plaintiff's motion, defendant was required to amend by eliminating this defense as immaterial, irrelevant, and prejudicial.John W. Cronin and Frederick A. Carroll, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Swift, Grime & Buffinton, of Fall River, for defendant.
The plaintiff's intestate, Antone E. Chaves, was employed by the Union Street Railway Company. He was insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The action is brought by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company under St. 1911, c. 751, St. 1913, c. 448, in the name of the administratrix of the estate of the employee, who has entered into an agreement with the insurance company for the payment of compensation in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The first count in the declaration is to recover for the death of the employee; the second count is to recover for his conscious suffering caused by the defendant's negligence. The defendant's answer was a general denial and an allegation of contributory negligence. In the third paragraph it was averred that the plaintiff, having received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act from the intestate's employer, was barred from recovering in this action. After the jury was inpaneled the plaintiff made a motion in writing stating that she had entered into an agreement with the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for the payment of compensation in accordance with the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that she is bound to account for any damages recovered under count 1 of the declarationto the insurance company, and that the defendant be directed to amend his answer by striking out the third paragraph. This motion was allowed and the defendant ordered to amend by striking out the third paragraph of his answer, to which ruling the defendant excepted. There was a verdict for the plaintiff on both counts.
When an employee receives an injury for which compensation is payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in such circumstances that a person other than his employer may be liable for damages, the employee may proceed at law against that person to recover damages or against the insurer to recover compensation under the act, but he cannot proceed against both; and if compensation is paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act the insurer may enforce in the name of the employee or its own name the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. Gontarz
...disproportionate to his recovery. See West v. Molders Foundry Co. Inc., 342 Mass. 8, 9, 171 N.E.2d 860 (1961). Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158, 136 N.E. 73 (1922).Why the plaintiff rejected workmen's compensation in the present case was left to conjecture.9 See, e.g., Dempsey v. Goldste......
-
Corsetti v. Stone Co.
...benefits, for example--may not be admitted at trial because such evidence is "prejudicial or irrelevant." Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158, 136 N.E. 73 (1922). See Shea v. Rettie, 287 Mass. 454, 457-458, 192 N.E. 44 (1934); Gray v. Boston Elevated Ry., 215 Mass. 143, 146, 102 N.E. 71 (19......
-
Pemberton v. Boas
...and prejudicial. Goldstein v. Gontarz, 364 Mass. 800, 808-809, 309 N.E.2d 196 (1974), and cases cited. See Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158, 136 N.E. 73 (1922). The defendants offered such evidence for the limited purpose of showing that it was the receipt of such benefits, rather than t......
-
Becker v. Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co.
...defendant whether the plaintiff is the real party in interest or a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of another. Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158, 136 N. E. 73. It is not necessary to state in writ or declaration that the action is brought for the benefit of the assignee for, witho......