Passini v. Aberthaw Const. Co.
| Citation | 97 Conn. 110,115 A. 689 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1921 |
| Parties | PASSINI v. ABERTHAW CONST. CO. et al. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; John W Banks, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Marina Speroni Passini against the Aberthaw Construction Company and others. Defendants appeal from a finding and award of the acting Compensation Commissioner of the Third district in favor of the plaintiff, as a dependent of Joseph Speroni, deceased employee, reserved by the superior court on the Commissioner's finding for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Superior court advised to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the award of the Commissioner.
On March 23, 1920, Joseph Speroni, an employee of the Aberthaw Construction Company, sustained an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment, from which he died on that day. The average weekly wage of the deceased was in excess of $36. The deceased was single, and boarded and lodged in Berlin, Conn., at the time of his injury.
The parents of the deceased at this time were aliens residing in Italy, and were partially dependent upon him; also the claimant, a sister of the deceased, was residing in New York City, and was then partially dependent upon the deceased. Upon the application of the alien parents, the Commissioner awarded them compensation at the rate of one-half of $5 a week for 312 weeks.
The deceased was contributing $13 a week to the support of the claimant at the time of his injury. The Commissioner awarded the claimant compensation at the rate of $13 a week for 312 weeks.
Clarence W. Seymour, of Hartford, for plaintiff.
Richard H. Deming, of Hartford, for defendant.
The defendants claim that the Commissioner erred in holding that the sister, who resided in New York City, was a member of the family of the deceased (who resided in Connecticut), and therefore a dependent entitled to compensation under the definition of " dependent" in section 5388 of the General Statutes. This definition reads:
" Dependents shall mean members of the injured employee's family or next of kin who were wholly or partially dependent upon the earnings of the employee at the time of the injury."
The word " family" is not defined in section 5388, wherein various words used in the Compensation Act are defined. In the common law of this state the word " family" is recognized as a word of variable and elastic meaning. Piccinim v. Conn. L. & P. Co., 93 Conn. 423, 106 A. 330; Crosgrove, Ex'r, v. Crosgrove et al., 69 Conn. 421, 38 A. 219; Dalton v. Knights of Columbus, 80 Conn. 216, 67 A. 510, 125 Am.St.Rep. 116, 11 Ann.Cas. 568.
In the absence of a definition of the word " family" in the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, c. 138), the word should be held to have such meaning or meanings recognized by our common law as are consistent with the remedial purpose of the act. Its meaning in our law is not limited to that of all members of a collective body of persons living in one household and under one head and domestic government. Other meanings are attached to the word in our common law. Individuals related through descent, without regard to unity of residence, also constitute a family.
The word " family" is recognized in our common law as meaning individuals related through descent, without regard to unity of residence; this meaning is consistent with the remedial purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and is therefore a meaning of the word " family" as used in section 5388 of the General Statutes.
The Commissioner did not err, therefore, in holding that the sister of the deceased, living apart from him, was a member of the family of the deceased, and therefore, as a partial dependent, entitled to compensation. In view of this holding, there is no occasion to discuss the meaning of the term " next of kin" as used in section 5388.
The defendants further claimed that compensation could not be awarded the sister in excess of the sum of $2.50 a week because of the provisions of that part of section 5350 of the General Statutes relating to the compensation of aliens. Section 5350 provides, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Close v. Benham
-
Goshorn v. Roger Sherman Transfer Co.
...existed here, is a member of his family. The precise question has not hitherto been decided in this state. In Passini v. Aberthaw Construction Co., 97 Conn. 110, 112, 115 A. 689, we called attention to the fact that the word ‘family’ had not been defined in the Compensation Act and stated t......
-
Rathbun v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...357, 359, 363, 84 A.2d 687. The concept of the word 'family' is broader than that of the word 'household.' Passini v. Aberthaw Construction Co., 97 Conn. 110, 113, 115 A. 689. The meaning of the word 'family,' as the cases cited show, depends on the circumstances in which it is used as well......