Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 July 1918 |
| Citation | 104 A. 491,93 Conn. 49 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William S. Case Judge.
Proceeding by Julia A. Robinson under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to obtain compensation for the death of her son Alderbert Robinson, deceased, opposed by the State of Connecticut. The compensation commissioner disallowed the claim, and the superior court confirmed the award, and the claimant appeals. Error and cause remanded.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub Acts 1913, c. 138) by Julia A. Robinson, mother and dependent of Alderbert Robinson, deceased, against the Highway Department of the state. Robinson was an assistant foreman of the state Highway Department, and at the time of the injury which caused his death was employed as working foreman of a gang of workmen engaged in repairing the state highway between North Haven and Wallingford, by patching the same with broken stone and oil. He was at work on the easterly side of the middle of the roadway behind a dumpcart, which obstructed to some extent the view of travelers approaching from the north. While so engaged one Palmer drove an automobile delivery wagon in a southerly direction past the place where Robinson was at work, and waved his hand to him, calling " Hello, Dell." Palmer was an old friend of Robinson, knew that he was working somewhere along the road, and intended to have a talk with him, if opportunity occurred. For this purpose Palmer stopped his car on the extreme westerly edge of the road, looked back for an instant, and saw that Robinson was walking diagonally across the road toward him, moving quickly, with his head down. While so crossing the road Robinson was struck and killed by a touring car driven southerly along the highway. The commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of Robinson's employment, and the superior court on appeal ratified and confirmed the commissioner's award. This appeal assigns as error the refusal of the superior court to correct the findings of the commissioner in certain respects, and that the court erred in confirming the award of the commissioner on the facts found.
Harrison Hewitt and Charles E. Clark, both of New Haven, for appellant.
George E. Hinman, Atty. Gen., and Jacob P. Goodhart, of New Haven, for the State.
It is not necessary to discuss the motion to correct the commissioner's findings any further than to say that paragraph 12, which finds that Robinson's object in crossing the road was to converse with Palmer, is an inference of fact which is supported by the evidence. Paragraph 14 is a conclusion of law which is decisive of the case, and the motion to correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rewis v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...additional cases may be found of similar import. See Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 81 Colo. 233, 254 P. 995. In Robinson v. State, 93 Conn. 49, 104 A. 491, left his work of supervising the repair of a highway, and while crossing the highway to speak to a friend who had hailed him,......
-
Peterman v. Indus. Comm'n
...the contention without merit. The plaintiff earnestly contends that the facts in this case bring it within the doctrine of Robinson v. State, 93 Conn. 49, 104 A. 491, in which it was held that a highway repair foreman who was crossing from the north side of a road to the south side thereof,......
-
Herbst v. Hat Corp.. Of America
...Co., 111 Conn. 365, 150 A. 110, 39 A.L.R. 856, in which recovery was denied. On the other hand, recovery was permitted in Robinson v. State, 93 Conn. 49, 104 A. 491; Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co., 107 Conn. 370, 140 A. 728; and Mascika v. Connecticut Tool & Engineering Co., 109 Conn. 473, 147......
-
Sichterman v. Kent Storage Co.
...the authorities from other jurisdictions, reserving the consideration of our own cases until the last. The case of Robinson v. State, 93 Conn. 49, 104 Atl. 491, supports plaintiff's contention. The court, however, cites no authorities to sustain its conclusion, and indulges in no reasoning ......