Tobin v. Rouse
| Decision Date | 06 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 374,374 |
| Citation | 99 A.2d 617,118 Vt. 40 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOBIN et al. v. ROUSE et al. |
Joseph S. Wool, Burlington, Howard B. Lane, Keene, N. H., for plaintiffs.
Black & Wilson, Burlington, for defendants.
Before SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, CLEARY and ADAMS, JJ., and CHASE, Superior Judge.
This cause comes here upon defendants' exceptions to the findings and award of the commissioner of industrial relations.
So far as here material the commissioner found the following facts: On March 29, 1947, Stewart Rouse, doing business as Rouse Motor Express, began trucking milk as a contract carrier from Starksboro, Vermont, to Boston, Massachusetts. He has his principal place of business at Starksboro, and all business transactions are there and payments of wages to employees are made there. At Boston on this date Benjamin T. Tobin was hired by Rouse at a salary of $50 per week. Tobin was not then or afterwards a resident of Vermont. His duties as an employee of Rouse consisted of operating a motor truck and delivery of milk products in Massachusetts, and for a short time in New Hampshire. On two occasions he operated the motor truck to Chester, Vermont. In the latter part of May or first part of June, 1947, Tobin and Rouse met in Rutland, Vermont, to discuss the terms of employment, and their agreement of March 29, 1947, was varied so that Tobin was to have a raise of $5 per week, a room and telephone bills paid for by Rouse, and a week's vacation with pay every six months. Tobin met with an accident in Watertown, Massachusetts, on September 15, 1949, and his resulting death arose out of and in the course of his employment.
In addition to the foregoing findings the commissioner found that Tobin was an employee of Rouse Motor Express within the meaning of our Workmen's Compensation Act, and that on the date of the accident the defendant insurance company was primarily liable, and Rouse was secondarily liable for benefits under the act. These additional findings are conclusions of law, and were excepted to by the defendants. Had they not been excepted to the legal effect of such conclusions would have been reviewable under the exception to the order of award, which was taken on the grounds that the order was not supported by the findings of fact, that Tobin was not an employee within the meaning of the act, and that the commissioner was without jurisdiction. Greenwood v. Lamson, 106 Vt. 37, 42, 168 A. 915; Schwarz v. Avery, 113 Vt. 175, 180, 31 A.2d 916.
Although every contract of hiring shall be presumed to have been made subject to the provisions of the act, V.S. 47, § 8067, a person working under a contract of hire made in another state does not become an employee under the provisions of the act until he renders service for his employer in this State under such contract. But as soon as he renders service for his employer in this State under such contract, then the act enters and becomes a part of the contract while he is so rendering service. He is then entitled to compensation under the provisions of the act for an injury sustained in this jurisdiction while so rendering service. DeGray v. Miller Bros. Const. Co., 106 Vt. 259, 274, 275, 173...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc.
...Compensation Law § 143.03[4] (2013) (citing Crawford v. Trans World Airline, 27 N.J.Super. 567, 99 A.2d 673 (1953); Tobin v. Rouse, 118 Vt. 40, 99 A.2d 617 (1953); United Airlines v. Industrial Commission, 96 Ill.2d 126, 70 Ill.Dec. 245, 449 N.E.2d 119 (1983)).3 Following the majority's rea......
-
Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc.
...126, 70 Ill.Dec. 245, 449 N.E.2d 119 (1983) ; Crawford v. Trans World Airline, 27 N.J.Super. 567, 99 A.2d 673 (1953) ; Tobin v. Rouse, 118 Vt. 40, 99 A.2d 617 (1953) ). We find this authority persuasive. Kuzel v. Aetna Insurance Co., 650 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.App.1983), which plaintiff references......
-
English v. Stokes Molded Products, Inc., A--412
...not going to its substance. The best reasoned of the decided cases reach results consistent with this approach. Tobin v. Rouse, 118 Vt. 40, 99 A.2d 617 (Sup.Ct.1953); Sims v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216, 126 S.W.2d 204 (Sup.Ct.1939); Pettiti v. T. J. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 10......
-
Morrisseau v. Legac
...were hired. When an employee renders service for his employer in this State, then the act becomes a part of the contract. Tobin v. Rouse, 118 Vt. 40, 42, 99 A.2d 617. When the act has been accepted, either expressly or impliedly, by the parties to a contract of employment, its provisions ar......