Kinsman v. Hartford Courant Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1919
• Citation: 108 A. 562,94 Conn. 156
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KINSMAN v. HARTFORD COURANT CO.

108 A. 562

94 Conn. 156

KINSMAN v. HARTFORD COURANT CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 22, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frank D. Haines, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Grace H. Kinsman for compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by the Hartford Courant Company, employer. Award for claimant affirmed by superior court, and employer appeals. No error.

Leonard J. Collins, of Hartford, for appellant.

Ralph O. Wells, of Hartford, for appellee.

WHEELER, J.

Two questions arise in this appeal: Did the superior court err in dismissing the appeal from the commissioner and in holding first, that Kinsman was an employé and not an independent contractor, and, second, that the injury resulting in his death arose " out of and in the course of his employment" ? Acts 1913, c. 138, § 1.

The principles of law by which these questions must be decided are settled, and their solution depends upon the application of these rules of law to the facts as found by the commissioner.

Mr Kinsman, the deceased, was in the employ of an insurance company from about 9 in the morning to 4:30 in the afternoon after which period his time was at his own disposal. He lived in Rocky Hill, 7 1/2 miles from Hartford, and the customary means of traveling between these places was by trolley car. For some years he had acted as the circulation and distributing agent of the newspaper, the Hartford Courant, and he also had the general supervision of its advertising in Rocky Hill and vicinity. He also acted as the local reporter for this paper under the same general direction as the ordinary outside reporter. He was expected to cover all events deemed of public interest in that vicinity, being paid at a per inch rate for news items accepted by the paper; it determining what to print and in what language and form. He exercised his discretion as to news items or " story" of any event of local importance; if he failed to reasonably cover news items in this territory, he was subject to criticism or discharge. The paper might direct him, if it chose, in the same way as it could any of its reporters, and it might direct him to go to a particular place in his locality to get a " story."

On July 4, 1918, the Honor Roll containing the names of the soldiers and sailors who had entered the army or navy from Rocky Hill was to be dedicated. The Courant regarded this as a news item of importance to this locality. A feature of the dedication was to be a patriotic address by Hon. George B. Chandler, and Mr. Kinsman had asked for and received a promise of a copy of this address. He had also arranged with the Courant to bring to it by trolley the story he had prepared, including a picture of the Honor Roll.

On July 3d Mr. Chandler had received at the office of the publicity committee of the state Council of Defense, of which he was chairman, a telephone communication from the Courant office in reference to certain aeroplanes which it was contemplated to send from Mineola to Hartford.

Shortly before Mr. Kinsman took the trolley to carry his story to the Courant, he telephoned Mr. Chandler to get a copy of his address, and at this time Mr. Chandler informed him of the proposed flight of aeroplanes in which the Courant had an interest.

Somewhere between Rocky Hill and Hartford Mr. Kinsman observed a flight of aeroplanes, and in order to obtain such information as to their movements as he deemed of interest to the Courant he leaned out of the car window, and was struck by an on-coming trolley car, and suffered injuries from which he died.

These are the facts recited in the commissioner's finding which are essential to the questions at issue.

Let us ascertain first whether the deceased was an independent contractor or an employé at the time he was injured.

We adopted in Alexander v. Sherman's Sons Co., 86 Conn. 292, 297, 85 A. 514, 515, Judge Cooley's definition:

" An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work."

And in Thompson v. Twiss, 90 Conn. 444, 447, 97 A. 328, 330 (L. R. A. 1916E, 506), we held:

" The decisive test is who has the right to direct what shall be done and when and how shall it be done? Who has the right to the general control?"

One is...