Procaccino v. E. Horton & Sons

Decision Date10 November 1920
Citation111 A. 594,95 Conn. 408
PartiesPROCACCINO v. E. HORTON & SONS et al.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; William M. Maltbie Judge.

Proceedings by Sylvia Procaccino under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation against E. Horton & Sons, employer, for the death of Vitiantonio Procaccino, employee. The Compensation Commissioner of the First District refused to award compensation, and claimant appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the decision, and claimant again appeals. Error.

This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub Acts 1913, p. 1735) by Sylvia Procaccino, widow and dependent of Vitantonio Procaccino, the decedent, against E. Horton & Sons.

The decedent was employed in a manufacturing establishment conducted by the defendants in Windsor Locks. At Windsor Locks a canal runs southerly parallel to the Connecticut river, and between the canal and the river are manufacturing plants of the defendant and others. Running parallel to the canal and directly west of it are the tracks of the New York New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. Running parallel to both tracks and canal and directly westward of the tracks is the main street of Windsor Locks. The village of Windsor Locks lies westward of its main street. Several manufacturing plants occupy positions between the canal and the river. Directly to the north of the defendants' plant is the plant of the American Writing Paper Company, while directly south of the defendants' plant is the plant of the J. R Montgomery Company.

There is a footbridge across the canal about opposite the Montgomery plant, leading across the canal with a pathway across the railroad tracks to Main Street. This bridge was owned and controlled jointly by the defendants and the Montgomery Company. There is also a footbridge and pathway leading across the canal and railroad tracks to Main Street about opposite the plant of the American Writing Paper Company.

There is a highway which leaves Main street at a right angle at a point south of all the aforesaid plants and crosses the railroad tracks, the canal and the Connecticut river, and leads into Warehouse Point. Apparently from the finding there is no highway on the easterly side of the canal.

The employees of the defendants and of the other plants in going to and from work used either one of these footbridges across the canal and paths across the railroad tracks or crossed the tracks and canal by the Warehouse Point highway, as might be most convenient.

The railroad tracks, the land on the east side of the railroad tracks, and the two footbridges were private property. The defendants gave no instructions to the deceased or any of its employees as to how they were to go to and from their plant. The most convenient means for employees in the situation of the decedent of reaching the defendants was by way of the footbridge of the American Writing Paper Company, which was located nearly opposite Grove street, upon which he lived. Presumably he customarily used it.

The method of approaching the defendants' plant by the Warehouse Point highway was an inconvenient and little used method, and one that, from the finding, apparently involved passing over private property in going from the Warehouse Point road northerly to the defendants' plant.

On Saturday, November 12th, the decedent, when returning to work at the defendants' plant, after having dinner at his home, while crossing the tracks just before reaching the footbridge of the American Writing Paper Company, was struck by a north-bound train and instantly killed.

Jacob Berman, of Hartford, for appellant.

Ralph O. Wells, of Hartford, for appellee.


The question in controversy in this case is whether the injury to the employee arose within the course of his employment or out of his employment. The two neighboring footbridges over the canal maintained by neighboring plants were used indiscriminately by employees of the nearby plants.

The fact that the defendants and an adjoining manufacturing concern owned and controlled one of the footbridges crossing the canal, from which a pathway led over the railroad tracks to Main Street, and which bridge apparently had no other use than as a way of approaching or leaving the plants to and from Main street, practically makes the inference necessary that this footbridge and the pathway from it over the railroad tracks was a method of approach for employees to the defendants' plant situated as the decedent was, contemplated in their employment by the defendants.

The indiscriminate use of both footbridges by employees of neighboring plants as the method of approach for employees in the situation of the decedent, the acquiescence of the employer in such use, in connection with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Barker, Matter of
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1986
    ...Fumiciello's Case, 219 Mass. 488, 107 N.E. 349; Fairbanks Co. v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 11, 120 N.E. 456; and Procaccino v. E. Horton & Sons, 95 Conn. 408, 111 A. 594.5 It is interesting to speculate as to what would have been the opinion of the Court if Justice Budge had sat, and if Jus......
  • Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1930
    ...premises used by the employee as a means of ingress and egress with the express or implied consent of the employer." In Sylvia Procaccino v. E. Horton & Sons, supra, the was an employee of the defendant. The defendant's plant and that of several others was located upon an area of land betwe......
  • Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1924
    ... ... John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. 90 Conn ... 303, 97 A. 320, L.R.A. 1916E, 584; Procaccino v. E ... Horton & Sons, 95 Conn. 408, 111 A. 594. In fact the ... employer required her to use ... ...
  • Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1924
    ...was the proximate cause of it. Larke v. Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320, L. R. A. 1916E, 584;Procaccino v. Horton & Sons, 95 Conn. 408, 111 Atl. 594. In fact, the employer required her to use this elevator, and hence its use became an incident of her employment, and if......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT