Quilty v. Connecticut Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1921 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | QUILTY v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; James II. Webb, Judge.
Proceeding by Helen G. Quilty for compensation for the death of Francis Quilty, opposed by the Connecticut Company, employer. Compensation was awarded pro forma by the compensation commissioner for the Third district, and the case was reserved by the superior court for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Superior court advised to affirm.
The following facts appear from the finding and award:
Francis Quilty, while in the employ of the defendant, was injured on June 7, 1919, in the knee, resulting in an abscess, which caused incapacity from July 19, 1919, to August 23, 1920, and which resulted in his death on August 23, 1920. Compensation was paid the deceased to the time of his death. His average weekly wage was $18.88.
He was 19 years of age and unmarried. At the time of his injury he lived with his mother, in a household consisting of his mother, a brother James, who worked, a brother Stanley attending school, and a maternal grandmother, an invalid.
The income of the claimant, his mother, consisted of $26 per week, of which James contributed $11 and the deceased $15. Such sum was necessary for the reasonable support of the household. The claimant was partly dependent on the deceased. The said Francis Quilty received from the home that which cost an amount found to be $5.20 per week.
The claimant claimed: First, that the case was covered by the law in force at the time of the death. This claim was overruled. Second, that as a partial dependent she should be awarded $9.44 per week, being half of the average weekly wage, and being a sum less than the average weekly contribution. This claim was overruled pro forma.
The commissioner awarded and adjudged, pro forma, that the respondents pay the claimant, as compensation for the death of said Francis Quilty, $5.45 per week for the period beginning August 23, 1920, and continuing for 312 weeks subject to any proper modification in case of the death of the claimant, and subject to such modification or adjustment if necessary, as may be proper by virtue of any judgment which may be rendered as a result of proceedings consequent upon this pro forma award, and further awarded and adjudged that the respondents pay forthwith $100 for burial expenses.
The commissioner found that the claim involves doubtful questions of law, which the public interest requires should be finally and definitely decided, and these are stated seriatim in the opinion.
Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for plaintiff.
Seth W. Baldwin, of New Haven, for defendant.
The question first presented for decision by the reservation is this:
" Is the statute applicable to the rights of dependents the statute in force at the time of the injury, or that in force at the time of the death of the injured employee?"
Francis Quilty was injured on June 17, 1919, and he died on August 23, 1920. In the interval between his injury and his death, chapter 142 of Laws of 1919 came into effect, which act in section 6 materially changed the law as to the method of determining the compensation of partial dependents from the method in force at the time of the injury and found in section 5349 of the General Statutes.
The claimant urged that section 5349 relates to a matter of procedure and remedy and that it was at once superseded by the later act. She also urged that, as compensation to a dependent does not arise until the decease of the employee, the measure of the compensation should be determined by the law then in force.
As we said in effect in Schmidt v. O. K. Baking Co., 90 Conn. 220, 96 A. 963, in dealing with a case of an employee, the right to compensation arises from the contractual relation between the employer and employee existing at the time of the injury, and the statute then in force in relation to compensation formed a part of the contract of employment, and determined the substantive rights and obligations of the parties.
The obligations of the employer to dependents of an employee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAllister v. Board of Ed., Town of Kearny
...152 N.E. 400 (Ct.App.1926). Contra, In re Beausoleil's Case, 321 Mass. 344, 73 N.E.2d 461 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1947); Quilty v. Connecticut, 96 Conn. 124, 113 A. 149 (Sup.Ct.Err.1921); Preveslin v. Derby & Ansonia Developing Co., 112 Conn. 129, 151 A. 518, 70 A.L.R. 1426 (Sup.Ct.Err.1930); Hecht v. ......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n
...Okla. 105 ; Lynch v. State, 19 Wn.2d 802 ; Virden v. Smith, 46 Nev. 208 ; Polk v. Western Bedding Co., 145 Pa. Super. 142 ; Quilty v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 124 ; Stanswsky v. Industrial Commission, 344 Ill. 436 ; see Hendrickson v. Industrial Acc. Com., 215 Cal. 82, 84 ; Hyman Bros. B. ......
-
In re Beausoleil
...at the time of injury and not by a subsequent statute which is effective at the time of the death of the employee. Quilty v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 124, 113 A. 149;Stanswsky v. Industrial Commission, 344 Ill. 436, 176 N.E. 898;Collwell v. Bedford Stone & Construction Co., 73 Ind.App. 344......
-
Gil v. Courthouse One
...of the death of an injured employee are ... fixed and determined by the statute in force at the time of injury.' Quilty v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 124, 127, 113 A. 149 (1921)." Iacomacci v. Trumbull, supra at 222, 550 A.2d 640. 11 The date of injury rule functions as a presumption of legi......