Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc.

Citation27 A.2d 164,129 Conn. 240
PartiesDAVIS v. GOLDIE MOTORS, Inc., et al.
Decision Date01 July 1942
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

ELLS, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edward J. Quinlan, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Perry Davis against the Goldie Motors, Inc., and another. From a judgment sustaining defendants' appeal from a finding and award of the compensation commissioner for the first district in plaintiff's favor and setting aside the award, plaintiff appeals.

No error.


A. Storrs Campbell, of Hartford, for appellant.

Frank E. Dully, of Hartford, (Edward D. O'Brien, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellees.


The plaintiff, an employee of Goldie Motors, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was injured while riding on the public highway in a vehicle owned by the defendant. The question is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The plaintiff was a handy man in the automobile sales place of the defendant in East Hartford. Among other things it was his business to use a three-wheeled motorcycle in connection with delivering and picking up automobiles at various places. On June 6, 1941, the plaintiff, using the three-wheeled motorcycle, delivered a car to the State Theater in Hartford, where it was to be raffled that night. The plaintiff finished his work about 7 o'clock in the evening except that he had to pick up the car at the State Theater later that same evening. As the plaintiff was leaving the shop to walk to his home in Hartford, one of his supervisors reminded him that the car had to be picked up and brought back and suggested that for the convenience of all the plaintiff take the motorcycle and report with it at the State Theater at 9 o'clock that night. The supervisor did not restrict the use of the motorcycle in any way. The claimant rode the motorcycle to Trumbull Street in Hartford where he had his supper and he then proceeded on the motorcycle over Chapel Street to go to the home of a friend, where he expected to remain until it was time to go to the State Theater and pick up the car in accordance with instructions. During this second trip he was injured as a result of a collision with an uninsured automobile. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was not on the route he would take if he were on his way direct to his home.

On these facts, which are not disputed by the plaintiff, the commissioner concluded that he sustained his injuries as the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that at the time of the accident he was at a place where he might reasonably be and was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment. These conclusions must stand unless they were reached "as a result of an incorrect application of some rule or principle of law to subordinate facts, or because of an inference illogically drawn from subordinate facts." Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co., 99 Conn. 353, 357, 122 A. 63, 65; Drouin v. Chelsea Silk Co., 122 Conn. 129, 131, 187 A. 904.

"An injury to an employe is said to arise in the course of his employment when it occurs within the period of his employment, at a place where he may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment, or engaged in doing something incidental to it. 'In the course of points to the place and circumstances under which the accident takes place and the time when it occurred. * * * The term 'arising out of,' in this act, points to the origin or cause of the injury. * * * An injury which is a natural and necessary incident or consequence of the employment, though not foreseen or expected, arises out of it." Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 308, 309, 97 A. 320, 321, L.R.A.1916E, 584; General Statutes, § 5223.

Applying these rules, it follows that injuries sustained on the highway are not ordinarily compensable. Whitney v. Hazard Lead Works, 105 Conn. 512, 517, 136 A. 105; De Rosa v. Levering & Garrigues Co., 111 Conn. 655, 658, 151 A. 246; Mulligan v. Oakes, 128 Conn. 488, 490, 23 A.2d 870; note 100 A.L.R. 1055. In Ohmen v. Adams Bros., 109 Conn. 378, 146 A. 825, the employee was injured in an automobile accident while driving to his place of work from a town where he had gone from his home to vote, with the permission of his employer, after the hour when his pay began, and on the same highway which he would have taken had he gone directly from his home to his place of work. While recovery was allowed because the plaintiff had reached that highway and was proceeding to his employer's premises, the court said (page 385 of 109 Conn., page 827 of 146 A.) "While the plaintiff was proceeding from his home to vote by permission of his employer he was serving his own purposes, although doing this with his employer's express consent and after his day's pay had begun, and could not recover compensation for an injury then suffered." In the Mulligan case, supra, the plaintiff was a cook and her husband a butler and chauffeur of the defendant employer. On their days off, the husband was allowed to use the defendant's automobile, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Carpentino v. Transport Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 13, 1985
    ...a place where he may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment ...." Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc., 129 Conn. 240, 242, 27 A.2d 164 (1942). In the instant case, these criteria for the Commissioner to have jurisdiction under the Act are not present; the......
  • Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 2, 1989
    ...at a place where he may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment....' David v. Goldie Motors, Inc., 129 Conn. 240, 242, 27 A.2d 164 (1942).... "Second, the Act should not be an impervious barrier, insulating a wrongdoer from the payment of just and f......
  • McKiernan v. City of New Haven
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 31, 1964
    ...benefit to the employee, is illustrated in cases such as Ohmen v. Adams Bros., 109 Conn. 378, 385, 146 A. 825; Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc., 129 Conn. 240, 243, 27 A.2d 164; and Herbst v. Hat Corporation of America, supra. Among the many cases involving applications of the general rule, and......
  • Menzies v. Fisher
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 18, 1973
    ...Labutis, 147 Conn. 267, 270, 160 A.2d 120; Kuharski v. Bristol Brass Corporation, 132 Conn. 563, 566, 46 A.2d 11; Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc., 129 Conn. 240, 243, 27 A.2d 164. Similarly, injuries occurring during diversions from the usual course of employment which diversions nevertheless ......
  • 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