Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1920 |
| Citation | 95 Conn. 40,110 A. 538 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAUNDERS et al. v. NEW ENGLAND COLLAPSIBLE TUBE CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.
Proceedings by John Saunders and others under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover for the death of Genevieve Saunders, opposed by the New England Collapsible Tube Company and others. Finding and award by the compensation commissioner in plaintiffs' favor was set aside by the superior court, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with directions.
Upon appeal in a workmen's compensation case, where an essential finding is based upon inference, if the inference is one which a reasonable man could not draw in a reasonable way the finding cannot stand.
Frank L. McGuire and Clayton B. Smith, both of New London, for appellants.
Philip Pond, of New Haven, for appellees.
The plaintiff's intestate, Genevieve Saunders, 15 years of age, was employed by the New England Collapsible Tube Company on the third floor of its factory. A number of girls worked on this floor with the deceased. The factory building consisted of several floors, and it was necessary for the girls employed in the factory to go from one floor to another for the purpose of getting material as needed, or for the purpose of taking finished work to another department. It was customary for the girls so employed daily to use the elevator for this purpose, and they also used the elevator in going to work in the morning or at noontime and in leaving their place of employment at night.
The decedent used this elevator in this way during the period of her employment with the defendant. On October 24, 1918, and during working hours the decedent left her bench and went to the elevator and leaned her head over the gate, and the elevator descending crushed her head between the top of the gate and the bottom of the elevator.
No testimony was offered before the commissioner that at the time of her injuries the decedent was about to use the elevator in the course of her employment, or that at this time she had occasion to so use the elevator. The commissioner awarded compensation to the claimants.
The superior court on appeal held that the commissioner erred in holding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment and in requiring the defendants to prove that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. The court set aside because it could find no evidence from which it could be found that the accident arose in the course of the employment. And the court interpreted the commissioner's finding that " There was no evidence to show that this Saunders girl had reason to use this elevator on this particular day, at this particular hour, nor is there evidence to the contrary," as meaning that there was absolutely no evidence from which the commissioner could find the ultimate fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment.
The entire finding and memorandum of decision are to be read together as a whole. So read, we think it clear that by the words " there is no evidence" the commissioner intended to convey the meaning that there was no testimony no statement either from a witness or in a written document of this fact, that is, that there was no direct evidence, as it is called in common speech, of this fact. But he did not intend to exclude from consideration the realm of inference and it was in reliance upon the inference to be drawn from facts in evidence that the commissioner reached his conclusion. The court was in error in thinking the commissioner required the employer to assume the burden of proving that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.
The burden of proof in a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Acts 1913, c. 138, Pub. Acts 1915, c. 288) is upon the claimant to prove the statutory essentials of his case. He must establish by competent evidence that the injuries for which he seeks compensation arose out of and in the course of his employment. Sponatski's Case, 220 Mass. 526 108 N.E. 466, L.R.A. 1916A, 333; Westman's Case, 118 Me 133, 106 A. 532, 535.
What...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hayes
... ... unjustifiable. Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube ... Co., 95 Conn. 40, 44, 110 A. 538; ... ...
-
Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., No. 17977.
...608 A.2d 79 (1992) (reading memorandum of decision together with order of court to determine meaning); Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 42, 110 A. 538 (1920) (reading finding of workers' compensation commissioner together with memorandum of decision to support ulti......
-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...with the liberality with which the act is to be construed, this court held more than one century ago, in Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co. , 95 Conn. 40, 110 A. 538 (1920), that, when an employee is injured at a place where her duties required her to be, or where she might proper......
-
State v. Hayes
...limited to ascertaining whether the inferences are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable. Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40, 44, 110 A. 538; Ruerat v. Stevens, The state was unable, in this case, to produce direct evidence of the conspiracy and relied on evidence of......