Jones v. Town of Hamden
| Decision Date | 28 December 1942 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | JONES v. TOWN OF HAMDEN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Murphy, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mabel Jones, compensation claimant, opposed by the Town of Hamden, employer, and another. The Compensation Commissioner for the third district found in favor of the employer and another and the claimant appealed to the superior court in New Haven county.
From a judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, the claimant appeals.
Error and case remanded with direction.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and JENNINGS, ELLS, DICKENSON, and INGLIS, JJ.
James P. Doherty, of New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, for appellees (defendants).
Harry C. Jones was janitor of a public school in Hamden. It was his duty to clean the sidewalks of snow. On January 27, 1941, there was a fall of light, fine, dry, powdery type of snow and by noon of that day about an inch had fallen. Jones started his work at 6:30 a.m., went home to lunch at 10:30 and returned to school at 11. He assisted one of the teachers in the assembly room for a little over half an hour. He then resumed his work of snow removal, using a wooden pusher. From the times stated in the finding and not disputed he could not have been engaged in this work more than two or three minutes when he fell unconscious. He died in the hospital on February 6, 1941.
The cause of death as shown by the autopsy was a hemorrhage of an aneurysm in the sub-arachnoid area of the brain. An aneurysm is an out-pouching of a blood vessel having its origin in a congenitally weak spot therein which eventually may get to a size and degree of weakness so as to rupture. It usually ruptures spontaneously although various factors such as high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis or strain may be contributory factors. Many complete ruptures are preceded by a slow leakage over a period of time. It is probable that Jones had suffered such a leakage for six months prior to his death.
The commissioner concluded that Jones's death was "not due to any accidental injury which may be definitely located as to the time when, and the place where it occurred, nor to any unusual activity incidental to his said employment on January 27th, 1941, causing extraordinary excitement and physical exertion." He also concluded that Jones's death was not due to an accidental injury within the meaning of the Compensation Act, Gen.St.1930, § 5223 et seq., arising out of and in the course of his employment, and denied compensation. The plaintiff, Jones's dependent widow, filed a motion to correct the finding in respects designed to reverse this conclusion. She appeals from the denial of her motion but, in its broad aspects, the ultimate question is, did the commissioner apply the correct rule of law in reaching his conclusion?
One of the plaintiff's assignments of error is the refusal of the trial court to strike out the conclusion quoted above. She claims that it indicated a requirement that Jones's death be proved to have been caused by unusual activity causing extraordinary excitement and physical exertion. The substitute proposed by her could not have been insisted on in its present form but the motion was sufficient to bring to the attention of the commissioner her claim that he was setting up too severe a standard.
The opinion in St. John v. U. Piccolo & Co., Inc., 128 Conn. 608, 611, 25 A. 2d 54, 56, points out that our act, General Statutes, § 5226, provides for compensation for "personal injury" and is broader than those of many states which require proof of an "accident." This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Board of Education
...known and usual, should produce a result which on a particular occasion is neither designed nor expected"); Jones v. Hamden, 129 Conn. 532, 534, 29 A.2d 772, 773 (1942) ("an injury incurred by a workman while performing his work in the normal ordinary way may be an `accidental injury' and c......
-
McDonough v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co.
...at 539, 543, 97 A. 1020; Madden's Case, 222 Mass. 487, 494, 111 N.E. 379 [1916]." Id., 119 Conn. at 52, 174 A. 332. In Jones v. Hamden, 129 Conn. 532, 29 A.2d 772 (1942), the plaintiff's decedent was a public school janitor who was cleaning snow from a sidewalk. He was engaged in snow remov......
-
Edwards v. Piedmont Pub. Co, 738.
...198 Mich. 132, 164 N.W. 253, quoted in Eller v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 222 N.C. 23, 21 S. E.2d 809; Jones v. Town of Hamden, 1942, 129 Conn. 532, 29 A.2d 772; McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor, 1941, 7 Wash.2d 40, 108 P.2d 807; Clover v. Hughes, A. C. 242, 3 B.W.C.C. 275; Bro......
-
Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial Commission
... ... L. 107, 31 A.2d 759; Peterson v. Safeway ... Stores , 158 Kan. 271, 146 P. 2d 657; Jones v ... Town of Hamden , 129 Conn. 432, 29 A.2d 772; ... McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department ... ...
-
Workers' Compensation Developments 2007-2009
...A.2d 555 (2009). 43.Id. at 799. See McDonough v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104, 527 A.2d 664 (1987); and Jones v. Hamden, 129 Conn. 532, 29 A.2d 772 (1942). For further discussion of the proximate causation standard, please see Part IV. B., infra. 44.See CONN. GEN. Stat. §31......