Pallanck v. Donovan
| Decision Date | 02 March 1927 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PALLANCK v. DONOVAN ET UX. (TWO CASES). |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.
Separate actions by Erma Pallanck and by Guido Pallanck, her father against Daniel J. Donovan and wife, for personal injuries to Erma Pallanck. Pleas in abatement and to the jurisdiction were sustained, and, from a judgment rendered for the defendants thereupon in each case, plaintiffs appeal. No error.
Charles W. Bauby, of Waterbury, for appellants.
Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, and Morris M. Wilder, of Meriden, for appellees.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and CURTIS, MALTBIE, HAINES, and HINMAN, JJ.
The complaint in each case alleged that Erma Pallanck, aged 15 years, was employed by the defendants as a house girl, and that, on October 9, 1925, in performing one of her duties (that of emptying paper from a waste basket and burning it in the kitchen range) she was injured by the explosion of a shell loaded with gunpowder, which was in such basket, it was alleged, through the negligence of the defendants.
The defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement stating as grounds thereof that the defendants regularly employed five and more employees, and had not given notice that they would not be bound by the Workmen's Compensation Act and that whatever claim the plaintiffs had came within the sole jurisdiction of the compensation commissioner. The plaintiffs filed a general denial. The plea was sustained, judgment was rendered accordingly, in each case, for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The facts material to the issues involved in the plea are stated by the finding as follows: Erma Pallanck was employed by defendant Daniel J. Donovan, through his wife, the other defendant, to do housework and work incidental thereto, in their home in Meriden. For some three years before the date of the accident she was so employed after school hours and sometimes for whole days when school was not in session. Wages, according to the amount of work done, were paid her regularly each week on Saturday. For two weeks before the accident she had been regularly employed doing household work at wages of $5 per week. Defendant Daniel J. Donovan conducted a meat market in Middletown, regularly employed therein five or more persons, and had not given notice that he would not accept liability under the Compensation Act.
It is further found that no notice was given by either defendant to either plaintiff, until the filing of the plea that, by reason of the employment of five or more persons, defendant Daniel J. Donovan came within the provisions of the act, but this is unimportant as the statute requires no such notice.
Since the finding is that Donovan employed five or more persons in his meat business at Middletown, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff Erma Pallanck could, if necessary, be counted, with the employees in the meat market, in order to make up the five or more necessary to bring her employer under the act. We note in passing, however, that the compensation commissioners appear to have uniformly held that all who are employees of a common employer, within the definition of the Compensation Act (chapter 306, § 11, Public Acts of 1921), should be counted for this purpose, including persons employed otherwise than in the employer's business, provided their employment was not also of a casual nature. Thompson v. Twiss, 1 Conn. W. C. D. 425; Coady v. Igo, 1 Conn. W. C. D. 576, 584; Pilagree v. Jorgensen, 2 Conn. W. C. D. 289; Rekofskin v. Atwood, 3 Conn. W. C. D. 48.
The only question which is so raised by the appeal as to be available to the appellant is whether the nature of Erma Pallanck's employment was such as to place her outside the definition of an employee to whom the Compensation Act is applicable. Such an employee is defined as:
" Any person who has entered into or works under any contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, * * *; but said term shall not be construed to include * * * (b) one whose employment is of a casual nature, and who is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gurliacci v. Mayer
...compensation commission. Compare McKinley v. Musshorn, 185 Conn. 616, 441 A.2d 600 (1981) (motion to dismiss), and Pallanck v. Donovan, 105 Conn. 591, 136 A. 471 (1927) (plea in abatement), with Edmundson v. Rivera, 169 Conn. 630, 363 A.2d 1031 (1975) (demurrer to complaint), and Hope v. Ca......
-
Melendez v. Fresh Start Gen. Remodeling & Contracting, LLC
...expectation of continuing for a reasonable time, the employment is not casual." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pallanck v. Donovan , 105 Conn. 591, 594, 136 A. 471 (1927).The respondent specifically challenges as incorrect the commissioner's conclusion that the claimant was not a casua......
-
Hoard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
...recurring periods. De Carli v. Manchester Public Warehouse Co., 107 Conn. 359, 363, 140 A. 637, 60 A.L.R. 1191; Pallanck v. Donovan, 105 Conn. 591, 594, 136 A. The appellant makes the contention under the second count that if an injury is caused by the intentional or wanton act of the emplo......
-
Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co.
...The decision was not difficult in the Pulambo [Pallumbo v. George A. Fuller Co., 99 Conn. 353, 122 A. 63] and Pallanck [Pallanck v. Donoran, 105 Conn. 591, 136 A. 471] Cases which we have cited." After all, we are governed by the Act of our own State. It behooves us then to consider it and ......