Senzamici v. Waterbury Castings Co.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1932
• Citation: 115 Conn. 446,161 A. 860
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SENZAMICI v. WATERBURY CASTINGS CO. et al.

161 A. 860

115 Conn. 446

SENZAMICI v. WATERBURY CASTINGS CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

August 2, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.

Appeal from the Compensation Commissioner for the Fifth Congressional District, who dismissed the claimant's claim, brought by Rouse Senzamici for the death of her husband, Frank Senzamici, claimant, opposed by the Waterbury Castings Company and another, to the superior court, where judgment was entered, and the cause remanded to the Compensation Commissioner with directions to award compensation to the claimant, from which Judgment the respondent has appealed. Error, and cause remanded with direction.

Harold K. Watrous, of Hartford (Daniel G. Campion, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellants.

William B. Hennessay, of Waterbury (John B. Greco, of Waterbury, on the brief), for appellee.

AVERY J.

The claimant was the wife of the deceased, Frank Senzamici, and lived with him up to the time of his death, April 13, 1928. The deceased was employed in defendant's foundry at Waterbury. He contracted influenza, which later resulted in pneumonia, from which he died. The commissioner held that the claimant did not show that the influenza and pneumonia from which the deceased died were casually connected with his employment, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for compensation as his widow.

On appeal to the superior court, that court corrected the finding in many respects, the decision of the commissioner was reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to make an award in favor of the claimant; the court being of opinion that the facts conclusively established that the conditions of the deceased's employment were causally connected with the disease from which he died. The correctness of this ruling of the trial court is the matter involved in this appeal.

The finding of the commissioner states the following facts: The deceased worked loading pig iron onto hand trucks, wheeling it into the foundry, and putting it in the furnace. It was hot at the furnace mouth, and when he went out of doors, it was cold. He spent more of his time outside than around the furnace. The weather for the time of the year was normal. The deceased contracted a cold which later resulted in a more serious condition. Influenza is a germ disease. The claimant did not show that the influenza and the pneumonia from which the deceased died were casually connected with his employment.

The instant case was determined under the Compensation Law as amended in 1919 and 1921 (Gen. St. 1918, § 5388, as amended by Pub. Acts 1919, c. 142, § 18, and Pub. Acts 1921, c. 306, § 11), both parties having agreed that the amendment of 1927 (Pub. Acts 1927, chap. 307, § 7), referring to weakened resistance and lowered vitality, had no bearing upon the disposition of this case, for the reason that that act was not signed by the Governor within the time required by the Constitution, and was invalid. State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621, 147 A. 126, 64 A.L.R. 1453.

The real claim of the plaintiff is that the resistance of the deceased was weakened by his employment. In regard to this claim, we said, in Madore v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 104 Conn. 709, 713, 718, 134 A. 259, 261: " The causal connection required to be established is that the employment was the proximate cause of the injury, and this rule obtains whether the injury be the result of accident or disease. *** Before he can make a valid award the trier must determine that there is a direct causal connection between the injury whether it be the result of accident or disease, and the employment. The question he must answer is: Was the employment a proximate cause of the disablement, or was the injured condition merely contemporaneous or coincident with the employment? If its was the latter, there can be no award made. *** In and of itself weakened resistance neither under the amendment of 1919, nor under that of 1921, can be held to be a personal injury." In the case of Norton v. Barton's Bias Narrow Fabric Co., 106 Conn. 360, 364, 365, 138 A. 139, 140, we said: " It is not sufficient that the conditions of the employment contributed to some undefined degree to bring on the disability from which the employee suffers. In the production of results many circumstances often play a part of so minor a character that the law cannot recognize them as causes. *** The social philosophy back of the law...