Hinckley's Case

• Decision Date: 04 March 1940
• Citation: 11 A.2d 485
• Parties: HINCKLEY'S CASE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

11 A.2d 485

HINCKLEY'S CASE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 4, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court, Aroostook County.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Durward L. Hinckley, employee, opposed by the Bridge Construction Corporation, employer. From a decree dismissing employee's petition, employee appeals.

Appeal sustained, decree reversed, and case to be recommitted for further proceedings.

Argued before BARNES, C. J., and STURGIS, THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, and WORSTER, JJ.

Berman & Berman, of Lewiston, for petitioner.

Robinson & Richardson, of Portland, for respondent.

THAXTER, Justice.

The petitioner, Durward L. Hinckley, who claims that he was an employee of the Bridge Construction Corporation, seeks compensation for an industrial accident. After a hearing the commission found that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment and ruled that the petition should be dismissed. A confirmatory decree was entered and the petitioner appealed. The petitioner had been in the employ of the company as a fireman on a steam shovel just prior to the week commencing June 4, 1939. The job was completed and he had gone to his home. The shovel was left at Waterville. On Sunday, June 4th, Rossi, the superintendent of the company, called Sydney Knott at Phillips who had operated the shovel, told him that the apparatus had to be moved for a job at Van Buren, and asked him to go with the shovel to Van Buren and to operate it there. Knott asked if the petitioner could have the job of firing, and Rossi assented to such employment. The shovel was to be transported to Van Buren on a truck. Knott and Hinckley drove in Knott's automobile to Waterville. On Monday morning Hinckley fired the boiler, and Knott drove the shovel under its own power and placed it on the truck. Hinckley rode on the truck keeping up the fire under the boiler for a time after they had started. Knott drove in his car to Augusta apparently to get a license and joined the truck later on the route. Thereafter Hinckley rode with him. The next day at Haynesville they came to a low overhead bridge. The duffel pipe on top of the boiler would not clear this, and Knott told the petitioner that they would have to remove the pipe. The petitioner got up on the truck, Knott passed him a wrench, and while the petitioner was attempting to unscrew the pipe, he fell and suffered a broken back for which he now claims compensation.

It is not altogether clear on just what ground the commissioner bases his finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.

Apparently he found that Hinckley was not in the employ of the Bridge Construction Corporation, because his duties and compensation were not to start until the work at Van Buren commenced. In making this ruling the commissioner seems to have overlooked the fact that Hinckley's duties commenced at Waterville when he fired the boiler; and counsel for the insurance carrier concedes that he was in the employ of the...