Randall's Case

• Citation: 119 N.E.2d 189,331 Mass. 383
• Parties: RANDALL'S CASE.
• Decision Date: 28 April 1954
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 189

119 N.E.2d 189

331 Mass. 383

RANDALL'S CASE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued April 6, 1954.

Decided April 28, 1954.

Timothy H. Donohue, Boston, for claimant.

Frank W. Crocker, Boston (A. Lane McGovern, Winchester, with him), for insurer.

Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.

COUNIHAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by a self insurer, Harvard University, an educational institution (the corporate name of which is the President and Fellows of Harvard College), from a decree of the Superior Court in accordance with a decision of a reviewing board of the Industrial Accident Board which awarded compensation to Alvin R. Randall, an employee, for an injury sustained on May 26, 1952, during a student riot. There was error in the entry of the decree.

It was not disputed that the employee sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The only question before us is whether the employee comes within the classification of 'laborers, workmen and mechanics' as provided in G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 1(4), as appearing in St.1945, c. 369, part of which reads as follows, 'The provisions of this chapter shall remain elective as to the employers of the following: * * * persons other than laborers, workmen and mechanics employed by religious, charitable or educational institutions.'

The reviewing board found that the employer seasonably notified the Industrial Accident Board that it elected to cover as a self insurer only those employees classified as 'laborers, workmen and mechanics', and that this was the coverage in existence when the injury was sustained. It found, however, that the claimant was a workman within the meaning of the act. This we believe was error as matter of law.

It is a familiar principle that the findings of the reviewing board, if permissible as matter of law upon the evidence, must be accepted as true but not otherwise. Gorski's Case, 227 Mass. 456, 116 N.E. 811.

The evidence here considered in the light most favorable to the employee, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, indicates that the duties of the employee were somewhat analogous to those of a chief of police of a small community. He testified that his occupation was chief of police of Harvard University. His duties included supervision of about thirty police officers including a lieutenant and three sergeants with whom he was engaged in the protection of life and property at Harvard University. He received daily reports from his subordinates, and he interviewed applicants for positions on his force and filed vacancies as they occurred subject to the approval of an administrative vice president of the university. He supervised the office work of the police force, one of the principal functions of which was to handle and control traffic and parking problems on university property. He imposed penalties for violations of traffic regulations. His work also required him to accompany his subordinates as frequently as possible to see to it that student disturbances were broken up and students were kept out of serious trouble. Part of such work required him to take an active part with his men in quelling disturbances and he was as a matter of fact doing this when injured.

We are of opinion that the duties of the employee considered as a whole did not classify him as a workman. Compare White's Case, 226 Mass. 517, 116 N.E. 481. Words found in a statute are to be given their ordinary lexical meaning unless there be a...