Hughes v. American Brass Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1954 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUGHES v. AMERICAN BRASS CO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William J. Larkin, 2d, and Walter M. Pickett, Jr., Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was William J. Larkin, Waterbury, for appellant (defendant).
Harry Krasow, Waterbury, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Superior Court sustaining a finding and award made by the workmen's compensation commissioner for the fifth district. The principal claim of the defendant is that the court erred in sustaining the conclusion of the commissioner that the plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.
On December 4, 1952, and for a long time prior thereto, the defendant owned and operated, in the town of Ansonia, a plant which included a building known as the casting shop. The plaintiff was employed as part of the maintenance force of this shop, which was located on the easterly side of the Naugatuck River. About twenty feet to the north of the shop the defendant owned and maintained a bridge across the river. On this bridge the defendant had a gatehouse at which employees using the bridge for access to the plant customarily checked in on their way to work. To the north of a passway leading westerly from the west end of the bridge, the defendant owned a large tract of land which for many years had been used, at least in part, as a place for the dumpting of cinders and other refuse from its plant. As the cinder dump was extended, the area became suitable for parking automobiles. It was then used for that purpose and was known as the parking lot. The defendant maintained it for the convenience of its employees. The officials of the defendant knew that it was the custom of employees to park their cars in the lot and had consented to it and acquiesced in it for about twenty-five years prior to December, 1952.
About 1943, the company, learning that nails and other sharp objects had worked up to the surface of the ground of the parking lot, to the injury of tires, had the entire suface paved. During World War II, a watchman employed by the defendant supervised the parking lot. About 1943, lights were installed by the defendant to illuminate the lot and the adjacent area. For many years the defendant has maintained a roadway through the lot and passways in it, and had white lines painted from time to time to indicate the driveways which should be kept open and to point out the areas in which the cars of employees could be parked. When necessary, during the winter season, the defendant caused the snow to be plowed from the driveways within the parking lot.
The plaintiff, for many years, had been accustomed to drive to work in a fellow employee's car. After it was parked in the lot, he would walk to the bridge, check in for work and then proceed to the casting shop. For at least four years prior to December, 1952, he had customarily driven his own car to the lot and walked from there to his work in the casting shop. In December, 1952, and for many years prior thereto, between 250 and 300 cars of employees were parked daily in the lot. On December 4, 1952, the plaintiff drove his automobile to the parking lot, parked it there, walked ten or fifteen paces toward the gatehouse on the bridge to report for work, slipped and fell on a slippery patch of snow or ice and was injured.
The commissioner reached the following conclusions: The parking lot was maintained for the mutual benefit of the defendant and its employees, to provide a ready means of access to the plant and a ready means of parking the employees' automobiles in close proximity to the plant. The plaintiff entered upon the defendant's premises in accordance with the terms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proctor-Silex Corp. v. DeBrick
...185 N.E.2d 885 (1962), in Maxim's of Ill., Inc. v. Industrial Comm., 35 Ill.2d 601, 221 N.E.2d 281 (1966) and in Hughes v. American Brass Co., 141 Conn. 231, 104 A.2d 896 (1954). A situation almost identical to the case at bar is found in Lewis v. Walter Scott & Co., Inc., 50 N.J.Super. 283......
-
McNamara v. Hamden
...of the work day. Mascika v. Connecticut Tool & Engineering Co., 109 Conn. 473, 480, 147 A. 11 (1929); see Hughes v. American Brass Co., 141 Conn. 231, 234, 104 A.2d 896 (1954); Johnson v. Wiese, 125 Conn. 238, 239, 5 A.2d 19 (1939). Moreover, even when an employee is still in the process of......
-
U.S. Cas. Co. v. Russell
...within the course of his employment and is entitled to compensation. See Tynan v. Ellingwood, Sup., 122 N.Y.S.2d 768; Hughes v. Amer. Brass Co., 141 Conn. 231, 104 A.2d 896; Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 90, 77 So.2d 316; Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y. v. Kennard, 162 Neb. 22......
-
McKiernan v. City of New Haven
...v. Bristol Brass Corporation, 132 Conn. 563, 566, 46 A.2d 11; Katz v. Katz, 137 Conn. 134, 138, 75 A.2d 57; and Hughes v. American Brass Co., 141 Conn. 231, 234, 104 A.2d 896. The main claim of the claimant is that the present case is directly controlled by Lake v. City of Bridgeport, supra......