Greenfield v. Cent. Vt. Ry. Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1946
• Docket Number: No. 587.,587.
• Citation: 48 A.2d 854
• Parties: GREENFIELD v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY., Inc.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

48 A.2d 854

GREENFIELD

v.CENTRAL VERMONT RY., Inc.

No. 587.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 7, 1946.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1946.

Exceptions from Franklin County Court; J. Cushing, Presiding Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mildred Holden Greenfield, claimant, opposed by the Central Vermont Railway, Inc., employer, to recover for the death of William Greenfield, deceased employee. The Commissioner of Industrial Relations made an award of compensation to the claimant, and the employer appealed to the Franklin county court. The county court answered the questions certified in a manner supporting the award, and the employer brings exceptions.

Order of Commissioner annulled and set aside.

W. R. McFeeters, of St. Albans, for plaintiff.

H. H. Powers, of St. Albans, for defendant.

Before MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, and STURTEVANT, JJ., and CLEARY and HUGHES, Superior Judges.

STURTEVANT, Justice.

This is a case brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act. P.L. 6480 et seq. After hearing, the commissioner of industrial relations, hereinafter called the commissioner, made an award of compensation to the claimant and the defendant took the case to Franklin County Court on appeal. After trial by court the questions certified were answered in a manner supporting the award and the case is here on the defendant's exceptions. Among the questions certified to the county court by the commissioner is the following.

‘Did the accident, resulting in decedent's death, arise out of and in the course of his employment with appellant?’ The court answered this question in the affirmative. We first consider the defendant's exception saved to the court's answer to this question. From the findings appear the following facts material to this issue.

At all times here material William Greenfield was in the employ of the defendant, Central Vermont Railway, Inc. The defendant is a common carrier doing an interstate business. Greenfield's hours of work were from 11 o'clock p. m. to 7 o'clock a. m. and he was employed as a machinist to operate a lathe in the so-called car shop located on the southerly side of Lake Street in the city of St. Albans. There were several other men in his crew doing the same type of work all of whom worked in a building on the northerly side of Lake Street. The office of the foreman of this crew and the lockers of these men were in a building on the northerly side of this street. On October 17, 1942, Greenfield reported for work at three minutes after eleven p. m. At about 11:40 that night Greenfield's foreman called at the place where he was working at his lathe in the car shop on the southerly side of Lake Street. At that time the lathe was running perfectly. In the building where Greenfield worked there was a toilet available for his use and near his lathe was a telephone available to him; also a bench where he could sit and eat his lunch. His foreman could suggest no reason why it would be necessary for Greenfield to leave the car shop on the night in question for any purpose in connection with his work before his work period was completed. At about ten minutes after twelve on the morning of October 18, 1942, Greenfield was found unconscious on Lake Street where he had been hit by an automobile driven by an unknown person. He was taken to the St. Albans hospital where he died in a short time without regaining consciousness. The claimant is Greenfield's widow. At the time of his death she was not living with him but was partly dependent upon him for her support.

Finding No. 10, which is the basis for the affirmative answer to the question we are considering and to which finding the defendant excepted, is as follows:

‘There is no direct evidence in this case which discloses why the decedent was in the public highway at the time and place where he was struck by the automobile, nor did his supervisory officer know of any reason why decedent should be...