De Nezzo v. General Baking Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1927
• Citation: 138 A. 127,106 Conn. 396
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DE NEZZO v. GENERAL BAKING CO.

138 A. 127

106 Conn. 396

DE NEZZO v. GENERAL BAKING CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 28, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Judge.

Action by Victor De Nezzo, administrator, against the General Baking Company, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate.Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and, from the denial of defendant's motion to set them aside, defendant appeals.No error.

Allan E. Brosmith, of Hartford, for appellant.

Frank Covello and Francis A. Pallotti, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

MALTBIE, J.

Plaintiff's intestate was killed by an automobile owned by the defendant corporation and being operated at the time of the accident by one of its employees, Bernier.The sole contention of the defendant upon this appeal is that Bernier was not at the time acting within the scope of his employment.

The jury might have found the following facts: The defendant is engaged in the baking business, and at its Hartford plant produces bread in large quantities.Its employees work in shifts, and Bernier was foreman of a shift which worked during the latter part of the night and the early morning.He was in charge of the production of bread during these hours and, while there was over him a superintendent and a plant manager, at the period in question neither of these men were in the plant in the early hours of the morning, and the responsibility for the production of bread rested on him.The defendant purchases the yeast it needs from the Fleischman Company, which has a branch in Hartford.This company furnishes the defendant a 24-hour service; that is, in addition to its regular daily deliveries, which begin at seven o'clock in the morning, it stands ready to send yeast to the defendant when it is required by day or night.Its place of business opens at 6 o'clock in the morning, but at night certain of its employees can be reached by telephone, and they undertake to see that the yeast is delivered.Before the accident in question, the defendant had at times availed itself of this method of securing yeast at night; but its own employees had also at times gone for the yeast, particularly in the early morning or the middle of the afternoon.According to the testimony of the shipping clerk at the office of the Fleischman Company, the shortest time in which the employees of the defendant could secure yeast at night would be to come for it, and from this evidence the jury might well have inferred that this was also true if yeast was needed between 6 o'clock, when the office of the Fleischman Company opened, and 7 o'clock, when its deliveries began.

At about 6 o'clock on the morning of the accident, a batch of dough had been mixed by the employees working under Bernier, and there was immediate need of some yeast.There were then at the plant some salesmen, employed to drive automobiles of the defendant for the delivery of bread, and a garage man, who was also licensed to operate automobiles and had authority to use those of the defendant on occasion.It was not a part of the duties of any of these men to go for yeast, nor had Bernier any authority...