In re Chernick
| Decision Date | 30 March 1934 |
| Parties | CHERNICK'S CASE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Bristol County; Hanify, Judge.
Proceeding by Faye K. Chernick to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Joseph Chernick, her husband, opposed by the A. L. Nichols Company, Inc., employer, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, insurer. From an adverse decree, the insurer appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
R. A. Bogle, of Fall River, for insurer.
S. H. Workman, of Providence, R. I., for claimant.
It is admitted, or not denied by the insurer, that the injury to Joseph Chernick from which he died occurred February 4, 1932, between 7:30 a. m. and 8:00 a. m.; that the place of injury was Seekonk, Massachusetts; that the cause of the injury was a collision between an automobile driven by Chernick and two other automobiles; that Chernick was an employee of A. L. Nichols Co., Inc., with places of business at Fall River, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island; that the employee is survived by his widow, Faye K. Chernick, the claimant, and one child, Ernest Kramer Chernick, born August 13, 1931; and that they were dependent upon the employee at the time of his injury and death. It was further admitted, or not denied, that the deceased lived in Providence, and was a collector for A. L. Nichols Co., Inc., an instalment furniture house in Fall River.
A witness, Leon Simons, who lived in Providence, called by the claimant, testified that he had control of the collections and of the activities of the deceased as collector; that the average route of collectors consists of about one hundred and fifty calls or accounts; that it is a matter of indifference to the company if a man can do the work from seven in the morning until noon time or goes out at 10 in the morning and finishes at 6 at night ‘as long as he brings them the desired result.’ He further testified as follows: The route of the collector ‘is a collection of cards' and the collector is supposed to call on the persons named on the cards at some time during the day they are assigned to him and report to the witness. The collectors turn in their routes (cards) at night with the money collected on them; if the ‘route’ is not finished the collector is to turn in the money collected and make his back calls later; there were no particular working hours for a collector; he had a certain amount of work to do each day which must be done. On February 3, 1932, the route of Chernick consisted of Somerset, Swansea and Seekonk, which are located in Massachusetts, between Fall River and Providence. Chernick lived in Providence and worked in the Fall River office. On the night of February 3, 1932, he did not make a report at the store in Fall River and the witness waited for him until 7 o'clock and then went to his home in Providence. At about 8 o'clock he called Chernick by telephone and asked him why he did not come in that night. Chernick replied that he did not finish his work, that he had a lot of back calls to make and he could not finish them, and that he would be in in the morning. On the afternoon of February 3, 1932, a customer told the witness over the telephone that she had given Chernick a check in payment, that he did not have enough money to give her her change and promised to come back that afternoon; that she was a little worried about it and called to find out whether it was all right to give him the check or not. The witness spoke to Chernick about this conversation with the customer (a Mrs. De Sousa)-one of the principal reasons why he called Chernick was to find out why he did not return that money-and told him ‘positively to go there the first thing in the morning and do it.’ He asked Chernick why he did not pay the balance due the woman, and the deceased said he did not have time to get back that afternoon, and he told him to leave earlier in the morning and take care of these duties, i. e., his back calls and the payment of the change to Mrs. De Sousa.
It appeared from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.
... ... 14 Similarly, in four other cases the employee's only task was transporting or delivering goods in his vehicle. 15 Only in Chernick's Case, supra, 286 Mass. 168, 189 N.E. 800, was an employee other than a teamster injured while actually en route to or from work, 16 and the claimant in that case did not argue that the injured employee was engaged in the course of his employment by virtue of his bringing to his employer's ... ...
-
Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane v. Tornillo
... ... 333, 244 N.E.2d 314 (1969); City of Dallas v. Bradford, 646 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Ct.App.1983); Postal Telegraph v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 1 Cal.2d 730, 37 P.2d 441 (1934); and Chernick's Case, 286 Mass. 168, 189 N.E. 800 (1934) ... In In re Gwaltney's Case, the Court reversed a lower court decision that awarded compensation to an employee who, after parking his car, injured himself (slipped on some ice) while walking towards his office. Gwaltney had planned ... ...
-
Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane v. Tornillo
... ... Chernick's Case, 286 Mass. 168, 189 N.E. 800 (1934); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Purcell, 152 Ga.App. 279, 262 S.E.2d 566 (1979); Franklin v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed., 29 N.C.App. 491, 224 S.E.2d 657 (1976). In others, the issue was decided in light of statutory provisions limiting application of the ... ...
-
Whittemore Bros. Corp. v. De Grandpre
... ... employee was assisting a fellow worker, at the latter's ... request, in removing some waste. Compare Primos v. Gulfport ... Laundry & Cleaning Co., 157 Miss. 770, 128 So. 507; ... A.L.I., Rest.Agency, Sec. 236 ... Appellant ... relies heavily upon Chernick's Case, 286 Mass. 168, 169, ... 189 N.E. 800. Here, the employee was injured while en route ... to the employer's office to get instructions and route ... slips for the day. Even though this case is distinguishable ... from the case at bar, we need not conceal our dissent from ... its ... ...