Crane v. Peach Bros.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1927 |
| Citation | 137 A. 15,106 Conn. 110 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CRANE v. PEACH BROS. ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.
De Lancey S. Pelgrift and David R. Woodhouse, both of Hartford for appellants Peach Bros. and others.
Lawrence A. Howard and Arthur E. Howard, Jr., both of Hartford, for appellees Lane Const. Co. and others.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and CURTIS, MALTBIE, HAINES, and HINMAN, JJ.
In the presentation of this claim to the commissioner, Peach Bros and Lane Construction Company were named as employers, and the Commercial Casualty Company, of Hartford, and the Federal Mutual Liability Insurance Company, of Springfield, as their respective insurers. The claims against the Lane Construction Company and its insurer, the Federal Mutual Liability Insurance Company, were dismissed by the commissioner. An award was made against Peach Bros. and their insurer, both of whom appealed. The finding was amended upon motion, the case reviewed by the superior court, and the ruling of the Commissioner sustained. The salient facts, as disclosed by the record, are that the claimant was on and before December 24, 1925, a truck driver in the employ of Peach Bros., and both parties were subject to part B of chapter 284 of the General Statutes; Peach Bros. had contracted with the Lane Company to furnish the latter trucks with drivers for $3 per hour upon a construction job being done by the Lane Company, and the claimant was the driver for one of the Peach Bros. trucks; on December 24, 1925, while repairing an automobile chain, a piece of steel flew off the chain, and entered the claimant's right eye. It was found that this was a personal injury arising out of and in the course of the claimant's employment by Peach Bros. The question of specific indemnity for injury to the eye, was left open, pending the report of an eye specialist. It was found that claimant was totally disabled for 15 weeks and his average weekly wage $34, and an award was made accordingly. It was further found by the commissioner that, at the time of claimant's injury, the relation of the Lane Company and Peach Bros. was that of principal employer and contractor, that the former had complied with part B of chapter 284, and that, while service was being rendered to them by Peach Bros., the Lane Company deducted from the payments to Peach Bros. certain sums of money to take care of the additional compensation liability with which the Lane Company presumed it was charged by reason of the services rendered by Peach Bros.‘ employees.
The controlling question presented by this appeal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic
...employer, and (3) that the work be a part or process in the trade or business of the principal employer." Crane v. Peach Bros ., 106 Conn. 110, 113, 137 A. 15 (1927). The third prong of this test—the only one at issue in the present case—frequently is the most difficult to apply. See, e.g.,......
-
Cummings v. Union Quarry and Construction Co., a Corp.
... ... and any remedy of the injured man must be found to lie ... exclusively at common law. [Crane v. Peach Brothers, ... 106 Conn. 110, 137 A. 15; Corbett's Case, 270 Mass. 162, ... 170 N.E. 56; ... ...
-
Cummings v. Union Quarry and Const. Co.
...the case is not one for compensation and any remedy of the injured man must be found to lie exclusively at common law. [Crane v. Peach Brothers, 106 Conn. 110, 137 Atl. 15; Corbett's Case, 270 Mass. 162, 170 N.E. 56; Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co., 200 Mich. 597, 166 N.W. 876; American Radia......
-
Mancini v. Bureau of Public Works of Metropolitan Dist.
...Construction Co., 154 Conn. 607, 611, 228 A.2d 149; Battistelli v. Connohio, Inc., 138 Conn. 646, 649, 88 A.2d 372; Crane v. Peach Bros., 106 Conn. 110, 113, 137 A. 15. The plaintiffs contend, however, that the court subsequently committed error because the charge on this special defense, i......