Richardson v. City of New Haven
| Decision Date | 23 February 1932 |
| Citation | 158 A. 886,114 Conn. 389 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | RICHARDSON v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Edith B Richardson, opposed by the City of New Haven and another. The compensation commissioner awarded compensation in favor of claimant, and the superior court dismissed an appeal and affirmed the award, and defendants appeal.
No error.
Harold K. Watrous and Daniel G. Campion, both of Hartford, for appellants.
George E. Beers and William L. Beers, both of New Haven, for appellee.
The commissioner's finding of facts material to the questions raised by this appeal is extremely brief and lacking in detail. It is that the decedent on March 27, 1931, was, and for several years prior thereto had been, employed as a fireman by the employer-respondent. Shortly after 8 o'clock on the morning of that day, while driving a hook and ladder truck to a fire, at the corner of Fountain and Davis streets, in the course of his employment, he suffered a strain of the heart muscle, the effect of which caused his death about 11 o'clock the same morning. It is undisputed, however, that at all times prior to that day he had been in good health and actively and regularly engaged in his work, that the truck which he was operating was a substitute truck which was difficult to steer, and that while turning a corner he felt something give in the region of his left shoulder; on his return to the firehouse he complained of a pain in the region of his left shoulder and " kept rubbing his chest," and that death ensued the same morning as above related. It is also admitted that on the autopsy the heart showed an infarct, which is an area of dead tissue caused by lack of nourishment thereto through interference, by obstruction of an artery or arteries, with the blood supply to that particular area.
The trial court held, and in this we concur, that, although the medical testimony was conflicting, the commissioner was justified upon the evidence in finding, as he did, that the cause of death was heart strain from steering the truck, and further held that, instead of the correction sought by the appellants to the effect that the expectancy of the decedent, in view of his heart disease, was not more than two years, the commissioner reasonably could have found from medical testimony that he " might have lived out his allotment of years." The facts above stated, which include all the material corrections of the finding to which the appellants are entitled, clearly establish an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the decedent's employment, and the requisite causal relation between accident and his death.
The finding also precludes adoption by us of the contention of the appellants that the correct conception of the situation is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...serious injury than otherwise would have been the case in the absence of the preexisting condition. See, e.g., Richardson v. New Haven , 114 Conn. 389, 391–92, 158 A. 886 (1932).Because the defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff's injury occurred in the course of her employment, we c......
-
McDonough v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co.
...source if caused by unusual excitement and over-exertion is an accidental injury within the compensation law. Richardson v. New Haven, 114 Conn. 389, 391, 158 A. 886 [1932]; Hartz v. Hartford Faience Co., 90 Conn. 539, 543, 97 A. 1020 [1916]; Monk v. Charcoal Iron Co., 264 Mich. 193, 224 N.......
-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...even though the conditions of the employment did not increase the risk of injury. See Savage v. St. Aeden's Church, supra, 122 Conn. 347. Richardson, however, stands for no such proposition. Rather, like Hartz, Richardson merely holds that an employee with a preexisting condition that makes......
-
J. Norman Geipe, Inc. v. Collett, 42.
...v. McLennard (1911) 4 B.W.C.C. 190; Eastman Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 186 Cal. 587, 200 P. 17, 20; Richardson v. New Haven, 114 Conn. 389, 158 A. 886; Stier v. City of Derby, 119 Conn. 44, 174 A. 332, 335; Baggot Company v. Industrial Comm., 290 Ill. 530, 125 N.E. 254, 7 A. L.R. 161......