Orsinie v. Torrance

• Decision Date: 01 June 1921
• Citation: 113 A. 924,96 Conn. 352
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ORSINIE v. TORRANCE et al.

113 A. 924

96 Conn. 352

ORSINIE v. TORRANCE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1921

Case Reserved from Superior Court, New London County; Isaac Wolfe Judge.

Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Pasquale Orsinie, the employee, against Archibald Torrance the employer, and others. From an award of the Compensation Commissioner, respondent employer appealed to the superior court, which reserved the case for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Superior court advised to set aside the award and enter judgment for respondent employer.

John H. Barnes, of Norwich, for plaintiff.

A Storrs Campbell, of Hartford, for defendant.

BEACH J.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a laborer at the plant of the Eastern Connecticut Power Company about seven miles from Norwich. On the day in question the claimant and other employees of the respondent had finished their work for the day, and were waiting beside the highway for a trolley car to take them back to Norwich, when the claimant, in crossing the highway to get a ride on a motor truck, was knocked down by a motorcycle and received the injuries in question.

The commissioner held that the principle announced in Swanson v. Latham & Crane, 92 Conn. 87, 101 A. 492, was applicable to the instant case; and the correctness of this ruling depends on the terms of the contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent. The commissioner has not found what the terms of that contract were. He states that " the evidence of both claimant and respondent brought out" certain terms of the contract, and that " the employer testifies" to certain other terms. This is a mere statement of what the evidence was, and it leaves the controlling facts undetermined one way or the other. In the exercise of his peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction the commissioner ought to decide explicitly every material issue of fact on which his conclusions are based. Documentary evidence should be recited in so far as is necessary to test the correctness of the commissioner's conclusions therefrom, but the testimony of witnesses should not be repeated in the finding.

Strictly speaking, the result in the present case is that the findings of fact fail to support the award, because the terms of the verbal contract of employment are not ascertained by any finding. Inasmuch as both the commissioner and the parties have...