Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROSENBAUM v. HARTFORD NEWS CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Samuel Rosenbaum, guardian, for injuries to his minor ward, David Rosenbaum, the employe, opposed by the Hartford News Company, the employer. Claim was dismissed, the dismissal affirmed by the superior court, and from its judgment, claimant appeals. No error.
On March 12, 1916, the claimant's minor ward, David Rosenbaum, sustained an injury, arising out of and in the course of his employment, "under circumstances apparently creating in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto." The injury resulted in an amputation of the right leg at the knee joint. On June 24, 1916, the claimant and the railroad company entered into a written agreement whereby the claimant, in consideration of the payment and receipt of $3,000, released the railroad company from all rights of actions, claims, or demands for or by reason of any injuries sustained by David Rosenbaum at the station at Hartford on March 12, 1916. As a further consideration for this release the railroad company agreed in substance that, if the Supreme Court of the state of Oonnecticut should hold that David Rosenbaum was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it would pay to Rosenbaum the further sum of $1,092 and expenses, being the amount of compensation payable under the statute for an injury resulting in loss of leg at the knee joint. The commissioner held that the right of the claimant to compensation under the act had been satisfied by the payment made by the railroad company to the claimant of a sum in excess of the statutory compensation, and the superior court sustained the action of the commissioner and dismissed the appeal.
Madison G. Gonterman, of New York City, for appellant. Charles Welles Gross, of Hartford, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). The question is whether Rosenbaum is entitled to his statutory compensation notwithstanding the fact that he has already received, through his guardian, an amount in excess thereof as the consideration for the release of a claimed right of action against the railroad company, arising out of the same injury for which compensation is demanded. That depends on the construction to be put on section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Acts 1913, c 138), Pub. Acts 1915, c. 288, § 2, relating to injuries arising out of and in course of his employment, "under circumstances creating in some other person than the employer a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto." The commissioner has found that the injury in question was sustained under circumstances "apparently" creating such a liability in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and that finding, taken in connection with the contract of release and settlement, is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal. The written contract does not, of course, establish the legal liability of the railroad company. That cannot be done in a proceeding to which the railroad company is not a party. But so far as the claimant is concerned the contract assumes the existence of such a liability, and in this proceeding between the injured employe and the employer the claimant cannot equitably be permitted to take any other position than that the $3,000 was received in partial satisfaction of a valid claim for damages.
Section 6 provides in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enquist v. General Datacom
...and that, if either sue, the other is entitled to notice and an opportunity to join in the action." Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398, 400-401, 103 A. 120 (1918). Section 31-293(a) further provides for the apportionment between the injured employee and the employer of any recover......
-
Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating Co.
...General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) §§ 31-293.10 In Enquist, the plaintiff sought to distinguish his claim from Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398, 400-401, 103 A. 120 (1918), and a subsequent statutory amendment by focusing on known and unknown future obligations of the employer. Our......
-
In re Meehan
...deductions for expenses of suit. See St. 1943, c. 432; Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696;Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398, 103 A. 120, L.R.A.1918F, 521;Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606, 122 N.E. 95, 19 A.L.R. 760;Donahue v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 119 Me. 20, 1......
-
Mickel v. New England Coal & Coke Co.
...a judgment is rendered in favor of the employer, his obligation to make further compensation payments is ended. Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398, 402, 103 A. 120, L.R.A. 1918F, 521. If an appeal from the judgment by the employee should be sustained and the case sent back for a r......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1996 Annual Survey
...of Skitrimo and Exquist do not entirely control the present cases." Id. at 208. 217 The court discussed Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398. 103 A. 120 (1918),Skitromo v. Meriden Yellow Cab C66, 204 Conn. 485, 528 A.2d 826 (1987) and Enquist v. General Datacom, 218 Conn. 19, 587 A.......
-
Survey of Connecticut Tort Law: 1991
...A.2d 219 (1990)). 68. 218 Conn. at 26. The prior precedent alluded to is the Supreme Court's decision in Rosenbaum v. Hartford News Co., 92 Conn. 398,103 A. 120 (1918), wherein the Court interpreted the predecessor to CONN. GEN. STAT. § 31-293a (1991) (§ 1311b 1951 Supp. of the 1949 Rev.) a......