De Rosa v. Levering & Garrigues Co.

Decision Date09 July 1930
Citation151 A. 246,111 Conn. 655
PartiesDE ROSA et al. v. LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Newell Jennings, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Florence De Rosa and others, for the death of one De Rosa, opposed by the Levering & Garrigues Company, employer. From judgment on trial to the court on appeal from finding and award of the compensation commissioner for claimants, dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, the employer appeals.

Error and cause remanded.

Thomas J. Birmingham, of Hartford, for appellant.

Philip Reich, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

BANKS J.

Plaintiffs are dependents of De Rosa, who was a structural ironworker in the employ of the defendant, which is engaged in the business of erecting structural steel for buildings throughout New England. On December 28, 1928, a job upon which he had been working at New Haven was completed, and he and a fellow workman were told to report for work the next morning at Wilson's Station, a short distance north of Hartford. The next morning De Rosa left his house in Fairfield upon a motorcycle, picked up his fellow workman in Milford, and proceeded toward Wilson's Station. As they were passing through Berlin shortly before 8 o'clock a tire on the motorcycle blew out, and De Rosa and his companion were thrown against a fence and sustained fatal injuries.

When the defendant's employees were shipped from one town to a job in another town they were paid whatever the railroad fare might be between the two towns, as was required by the rules of the union. If De Rosa had reported at Wilson's Station at a not unreasonably long time after 8 a. m., he would have received wages from that hour, and would have also received in his weekly envelope whatever the railroad fare might be between New Haven and Wilson's Station. The commissioner found that the defendant's employees used a motorcycle in transporting themselves from one job to another, that the defendant contemplated that they would use such means of transportation which was more convenient than travel by train, and lessened the likelihood of delay and hence was a benefit to the defendant, and further that the defendant contemplated that the usual highway accidents were annexed to the use of the motorcycle as a means of transportation. These findings as to the use of the motorcycle for transportation of the defendant's employees were found without evidence, the motion of the defendant to strike them from the finding should have been granted, and the finding is corrected accordingly.

The commissioner found that De Rosa's injuries and death arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the appeal tests the correctness of the judgment of the trial court affirming an award of compensation based upon that conclusion. An employee is not, as a general rule, entitled to compensation for injuries received upon a public highway while going to and from work. Such injuries do not ordinarily occur in the course of the employment, and the risks incidental to such travel do not ordinarily arise out of the employment. " This is so, because the ordinary contract of employment of a workman to render service at a designated place does not cover his movements outside of that place. He uses the highways as the public uses them, because he must, and not because his employer, by the terms or implications of his contract of employment, has the right to require him to use them at the employee's will." Lake v. Bridgeport, 102 Conn. 337, 343, 128 A. 782 784; Whitney v. Hazard Lead Works, 105 Conn. 512, 136 A. 105, 106; Orsinie v. Torrance, 96 Conn. 352, 113 A. 924. The rule is subject to exceptions based upon the terms, express or implied, of the particular contract of employment involved. We noted four such exceptions in the Whitney Case, supra, and it is the contention of the plaintiffs that this case comes within the fourth there stated, to wit: " where the employee is using the highway in doing something incidental to his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Pillen v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1931
    ...of their employment.” See, also, Bundy et al. v. State of Vermont, 102 Vt. 84, 146 A. 68, 69; Compensation Review 378; De Rosa v. Levering, 111 Conn. 655, 151 A. 246. In the case of Pearce v. Industrial Commission et al., 299 Ill. 161, 132 N. E. 440, 18 A. L. R. 523, the Illinois court said......
  • Pillen v. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau of State
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1931
    ... ... Highway Dept. 102 Vt. 84, 146 A. 69; Compensation ... Review, 378; De Rosa v. Levering & G. Co. 111 Conn ... 655, 151 A. 246 ...           Case ... of Pearce ... ...
  • McKiernan v. City of New Haven
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1964
    ...Bridgeport, supra, 102 Conn. 342, 128 A. 782; Whitney v. Hazard Lead Works, supra, 105 Conn. 518, 136 A. 105; DeRosa v. Levering & Garrigues Co., 111 Conn. 655, 659, 151 A. 246. The exceptions to the ordinary rule, four of which are pointed out in the Lake case on page 343 of 102 Conn., 128......
  • Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1942
    ...on the highway are not ordinarily compensable. Whitney v. Hazard Lead Works, 105 Conn. 512, 517, 136 A. 105; De Rosa v. Levering & Garrigues Co., 111 Conn. 655, 658, 151 A. 246; Mulligan v. Oakes, 128 Conn. 488, 490, 23 A.2d 870; note 100 A.L.R. 1055. In Ohmen v. Adams Bros., 109 Conn. 378,......
  • 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