Livingstone Worsted Co. v. Toop

• Decision Date: 07 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 759.,759.
• Citation: Livingstone Worsted Co. v. Toop, 48 R.I. 368, 138 A. 183 (R.I. 1927)
• Parties: LIVINGSTONE WORSTED CO. v. TOOP.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

138 A. 183

LIVINGSTONE WORSTED CO.

v. TOOP.

No. 759.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 7, 1927.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.

Petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the Livingstone Worsted Company, employer, for an award of compensation to Minnie A. Toop for the death of her husband, James A. Toop, employee.From a decree of dismissal, petitioner appeals.Reversed and rendered.

Ralph T. Barnefield, of Providence, for appellant.

George H. Raymond and Wallace R. Chandler, Jr., both of Providence, for appellee.

SWEENEY, J.This petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act(Gen. Laws 1923, § 1205 et seq.) was filed in the superior court by an employer.

James A. Toop died August 27, 1926, as the result of injuries sustained in the course of his employment by petitioner.Respondent is his widow and sole dependent.She filed an answer in which she claimed that her husband was not an "employee," subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, because his remuneration from petitioner exceeded $3,000 a year.After hearing a final decree was entered containing findings of fact and a ruling of the court sustaining the contention of respondent and dismissing the petition.Petitioner has brought the cause to this court by its appeal, stating as a reason therefor that the ruling of the court was erroneous.

The facts are undisputed.Mr. Toop was accidentally killed by an electric shock while operating an elevator.He had been continuously employed as overseer of dyeing by petitioner for more than 20 years.Petitioner accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which took effect October 1, 1912.At that time Mr. Toop's wages were $31.50 a week.He was then an "employe" within the meaning of the act.His wages were increased from time to time until in 1920he was paid $70 a week.His wages continued at this amount until his death.Mr. Toop was employed and paid by the week.About the 1st of August he told petitioner's general manager that he wished to take a long vacation and that he might leave his work permanently.Upon the request of the manager, Mr. Toop consented to continue his work until the 1st of September.

The sole question presented by the appeal is whether the deceased was an "employee" whose remuneration did not exceed $3,000 a year, within the meaning of that part of section 1290,General Laws 1923, defining "employee" as "any person who has entered into the employment of, or works under contract of service or apprenticeship with any employer, and whose remuneration does not exceed three thousand dollars a year."

In construing the Workmen's Compensation Actwe have held that it is to be interpreted with a liberality calculated to effectuate its purpose, and that it should receive such a construction as will extend its benefits to the largest possible class of employees and restrict those excluded to the smallest possible class.Taglinette v. Sidney Worsted Co., ...