Wechsler v. Liner
| Decision Date | 29 November 1951 |
| Citation | 328 Mass. 152,102 N.E.2d 92 |
| Parties | WECHSLER et al. v. LINER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
S. H. Rogers, Boston, R. A. Kaye, Boston, for plaintiffs.
M. J. Aldrich, Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is an action of tort, reported to this court without decision upon a case stated in substance as follows. The Independent Chair Company was a corporation and an insured subscriber under the workmen's compensation act. Harry M. Brenner, the plaintiff's testator, and the defendant Liner, were employees of said company. On March 18, 1949, both were riding in the defendant's automobile, operated by the defendant, on the business of said company and in the course of their employment. Brenner was in the exercise of due care and was killed by the negligence of the defendant Liner. Brenner had not reserved his common-law rights against the company.
Brenner left a widow and two children. By St.1947, c. 506, § 1A, revising G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 229, § 2, a person who negligently 'causes the death of a person in the exercise of due care who is not in his or its employment or service * * * shall be liable in damages, in an amount not less than two thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars, to be assessed with reference to the pecuniary loss sustained by the parties entitled to benefit hereunder and recovered by the executor or administrator of the deceased person in an action of tort * * * and distributed one half to the surviving wife or husband and one half to the children of the deceased dependent upon him for support * * *.' The case stated declares that the children were not dependents under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 1, but were dependents under the death act, St.1947, c. 506, § 1A.
The widow has claimed and received the benefits due her as a dependent under the workmen's compensation act, but the children have received nothing under that act.
The defendant, as an employee of the insured company, was not 'some person other than the insured', within G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 15, as it appears in St.1943, c. 432. Caira v. Caira, 296 Mass. 448, 450, 6 N.E.2d 431. Clark v. M. W. Leahy Co., Inc., 300 Mass. 565, 569, 16 N.E.2d 57. The law was summed up in Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 635, 59 N.E.2d 252, in these words: 'If at the time the injuries were received the parties were engaged in the course of their common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Arrington Const. Co.
...252; Thomas v. Fritz, 318 Mass. 622, 63 N.E.2d 357; Bencivengo v. Walter C. Benson Co., 319 Mass. 110, 64 N.E.2d 918; Wechsler v. Liner, 328 Mass. 152, 102 N.E.2d 92. In Ohio a constitutional provision similar in effect to our § 72-102, I.C., was construed in actions brought by an employee ......
-
Cloughley v. Orange Transp. Co.
...App., 31 N.E.2d 700; Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 59 N.E.2d 252; Thomas v. Fritz, 318 Mass. 622, 63 N.E.2d 357; Wechsler v. Liner, 328 Mass. 152, 102 N.E.2d 92; Trautman v. Warfield & Rohr Co., 151 Md. 417, 135 A. 180; State To Use of Reynolds v. City of Baltimore, 199 Md. 289, 86 A.......
-
Frantz v. McBee Co.
...of an employee to his coemployee, except in Massachusetts. Cf. Bresnahan v. Barre, 1934, 286 Mass. 593, 190 N.E. 815; Wechsler v. Liner, 1951, 328 Mass. 152, 102 N.E.2d 92. In fact, it appears to be the general rule that, where there is no legislative mandate to the contrary, fellow workmen......
-
Allman v. Hanley
...in the act, only Massachusetts has barred a co-employee from recovering against a negligent fellow employee. Wechsler v. Liner, 328 Mass. 152, 102 N.E.2d 92 (1951); Bresnahan v. Barre, Seligman v. Gerlach, Sup., 215 N.Y.S. 2d 634 (1961), recognizes a basic distinction between the New York W......