Dazy v. Apponaug Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1914
• Citation: 36 R.I. 81,89 A. 160
• Parties: DAZY v. APPONAUG CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

89 A. 160

36 R.I. 81

DAZY

v. APPONAUG CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 2, 1914.

Appeal from Superior Court, Kent County; John W. Sweeney, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Desire Dazy against the Apponaug Company. From a decree granting him insufficient relief, petitioner appeals. Affirmed and remanded.

Alberic A. Archambault and L N. Raoul Archambault, both of Providence, for appellant.

Gardner, Pirce & Thornley, of Providence, for respondent.

VINCENT, J. This is a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1912, c. 831) brought in the superior court for the county of Kent to recover compensation for the death of the petitioner's minor son through injuries received in the course of his employment by the respondent corporation.

The petitioner claims, in and by his petition, that at the time of the injury both he and his wife were wholly dependent for their support upon the earnings of the son. The respondent admits that the death of the son resulted from the injury but claims that at the time of the injury the petitioner was not dependent, within the meaning of the compensation act, and therefore that the respondent is only liable for the reasonable expenses incurred in the last sickness and for the burial of the son, not exceeding $200.

The case was heard by the superior court, which filed its decision in writing to the effect that the petitioner was not dependent upon the son either wholly or in part, and that the respondent should pay to the petitioner the sum of $200, covering the expenses of the last illness and funeral. Subsequent to this decision by the superior court the following decree was entered:

"(1) That the deceased son lived at home with his father and mother and gave his pay to them, about $8 per week, receiving from them $1 a week as spending money, in addition to his board, lodging, and clothes.

"(2) That at the time of the injury the father was working in the respondent's mill and was receiving about $11.50 per week, and the mother was also working and receiving about $8 per week as wages.

"(3) That the father owned the house in which the family lived, which would rent for $10 a month, and he and his wife owned two other houses, which rented for $7 a month each and had a mortgage on them for $500, with interest amounting to $30 per year.

"(4) That the father at the time of his son's injury was receiving from the son's wages a net profit of not more than $5 a week, and the family savings were then from $10 to $12 per week.

"(5) That after the death of the son the mother ceased to work for wages, but the father continued to work in the respondent's mill and has been able to support his wife and himself out of his wages and other income and save $3 or $4 per week.

"(6) That, as a conclusion of fact from the foregoing facts, the said Jean Baptiste Dazy left no person either wholly or partly dependent upon his earnings for support at the time of his injury, and that therefore the case conies under section 9 of article 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

"(7) That the reasonable expenses of the last sickness and burial of the deceased exceeded $200, the limit of liability under the aforesaid section."

From this decree of the superior court the petitioner took an appeal to this court, stating his reasons as follows:

"(1) Said decree is to the effect that Jean Baptiste Dazy, the deceased, left no person either wholly or partly dependent upon his earnings for support at the time of his injury.

"(2) Said decree says that this case comes under section 9 of article 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

"(3) By said decree the respondent is held not...