Vitas v. Grace Hospital Soc.

• Citation: 107 Conn. 512,141 A. 649
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 04 May 1928
• Parties: VITAS v. GRACE HOSPITAL SOC. ET AL.

141 A. 649

107 Conn. 512

VITAS v. GRACE HOSPITAL SOC. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 4, 1928

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Patrick B. O'Sullivan, of Derby, for appellant.

Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellees.

WHEELER, C.J.

The appeal raises the questions whether the plaintiff's injury arises out of and in the course of her employment these are to be determined upon the findings made by the commissioner since no attempt has been made to correct them.

The plaintiff claimant was employed in the laundry of the defendant employer, Grace Hospital Society, which was operated for the purposes of washing and ironing bedding clothing, and other articles worn and used by the patients, nurses, and help who lived in the hospital. The claimant lived in the hospital, occupying with two others a room which had two windows. On Tuesdays and Thursdays more work was done in the laundry than on other days, and the flat work ironing machine was kept hot during the noon rest period, and the laundry employees frequently started to work at about 12:30 instead of waiting until 1 o'clock, the usual time for beginning work after the noon period.

The laundry for the help was done on Fridays in the regular course of business. The claimant took to the hospital from her home four pairs of window curtains, with the intention of ironing them on the machine which she operated, and using two pairs to hang at the windows of the room she occupied at the hospital, and returning the other two pairs to her home.

The claimant was at liberty to hang such curtains as she wished at the windows of the room she occupied in the hospital, and when the curtains needed laundering they would be done at the hospital laundry in the usual course of business.

Employees in the laundry sometimes did personal work during the noon rest period on days when the machine was kept running during the noon hours, so that it might remain hot, and this practice was not objected to by the employer.

On Thursday, June 24, 1926, at about 12:45 p. m., the claimant attempted to launder the window curtains, starting with the two pairs which she intended to use in her room. One of the curtains intended for her room became caught in the machine, and she went behind the machine and attempted to release it, and in so doing her hand became caught in the machine and was severely injured. The claimant's action in this respect was not serious and willful misconduct.

The commissioner held that at the time of her injury the claimant was engaged in work which was incidental to her employment, at a place she was permitted to be, and that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The trial court held the reverse of this and vacated the award.

The plaintiff's " hours of work" were from 7 to 11:45 and from 1 to 5. This allowed a noon rest period of one hour and a quarter. The noon rest period was an incident of the employment and clearly contemplated by it. Guiliano v. O'Connell's Sons, 105 Conn. 695, 701, 136 A. 677; Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116, 120, 96 A. 368, L.R.A. 1916D, 86.

Temporary suspension of work by an employee for a permitted rest period, or lunch hour, or for satisfying the wants of nature, or in seeking refuge from rain, or for warming one's self where this is not a clear departure from the employment, have not been generally held sufficient to break the continuity of the employment. De Luca v. Park Commissioners, 94 Conn. 7, 11, 12, 107 A. 611; Blovelt v. Sawyer, 1 K. B. (1904) 271, 273; Sundine's Case, 218 Mass. 1, 4, 105 N.E. 433; Brightman's Case, 220 Mass. 17, 19, 20, 107 N.E. 527, L.R.A. 1916A, 321; Zabriskie v. Erie R. Co., 86 N.J.Law, 266, 92 A. 385, 386, L.R.A. 1916A, 315; Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Com'n, 160 Wis. 633, 152 N.W. 416, 417. Moreover, while the hours named were the regular hours of work, it also appears that on the busier days of Tuesdays and Thursdays, the ironing machine was not allowed to cool during the noon period, but was kept hot, and work on it for the hospital was often started again at half past 12 without waiting for the end of the rest period. It was within this period and upon a Thursday that the injury occurred. Unquestionably it occurred within the period of the employment and at a place where the plaintiff might reasonably be.

This meets two of the three conditions which must be present before it can be held that the claimant's injury rose out of her employment. The third requirement is that her injury resulted from a risk arising out of the employment or the conditions under which it was carried on. Larke v Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 753, 755, 97 A. 320, L.R.A. 1916E, 584; Harivel v. Hall-Thompson Co....