Northam v. L.E. Bunnell Transp. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1934 |
| Citation | 118 Conn. 312,171 A. 837 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NORTHAM v. L. E. BUNNELL TRANSP. CO., Inc., et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Nellie Northam against the L. E. Bunnell Transportation Company Incorporated, and another. The Compensation Commissioner for the Third District made a finding and award of compensation in favor of the plaintiff. From a judgment of the superior court dismissing the appeal from the Compensation Commissioner and affirming the award, the defendants appeal.
No error.
Harold K. Watrous, of Hartford (Daniel G. Campion, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellants.
Raymond J. Devlin, of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff was awarded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act as a dependent of Frederic Northam. The commissioner in his finding simply stated that, while the decedent was proceeding toward Waterbury with a truck owned by the defendant employer and operated by one of its drivers, he was instantly killed by falling under its wheels, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of the decedent's employment. Under this scant finding it is impossible to review the correctness of the conclusion of the commissioner, and we reiterate that it is the duty of a commissioner to find the relevant subordinate facts upon which his conclusions are based whenever he has reason to believe that a party to the proceedings intends to attack those conclusions by appeal Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 428, 130 A. 672: Senzamici v. Waterbury Castings Co., 115 Conn. 446, 450, 161 A. 860. In the case before us, it must have been evident to the commissioner, at least when the motion to correct his findings was filed, that a finding as to the circumstances of the accident would be necessary to present the questions which the defendants desired to raise upon the appeal, and he should have then, if not before, made a finding as to those circumstances.
The defendants have sought to import into the record by a correction of the finding many facts as to the conduct of the decedent before the accident, in order to claim that his death was the result of skylarking and drinking in which he had been engaged while riding upon the truck previous to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dombrowski v. Fafnir Bearing Co.
...the circumstances, the commissioner, in preparing his finding, should have followed the practice outlined in Northam v. L. E. Bunnell Transp. Co., 118 Conn. 312, 313, 171 A. 837; see Shillinglaw v. Springs Cotton Mills, supra, 209 S.C. 383, 40 S.E.2d The statutes in the various states autho......
-
Devine Bros., Inc. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 191
...is reached on whether, in the light of the statutory definition, a labor dispute is involved. Cf. Northam v. L. E. Bunnell Transportation Co., 118 Conn. 312, 313, 171 A. 837. This is, of course, quite apart from the finding required by §§ 7411 and 7412 of the General Statutes as a prerequis......
-
Voltz v. Orange Volunteer Fire Ass'n, Inc.
... ... New York, N.H. & ... H. R. Co., 116 Conn. 127, 134, 163 A. 762, 765. The ... court ... ...
-
Nicotra v. Bigelow, Sanford Carpet Co.
... ... the commissioner, as they were undisputed. Northam v. L ... E. Bunnell Transportation Co., Inc., 118 Conn ... ...