Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1939 |
| Citation | 125 Conn. 109,3 A.2d 668 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILSON v. LARGAY BREWING CO., Inc., et al.[*] |
Case reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Earnest C Simpson, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Robert John Wilson, employee, opposed by the Largay Brewing Company Inc., employer, and another, wherein an appeal from a finding and award of the compensation commissioner in favor of the employee was taken to the superior court and reserved by the court for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.
Trial court advised to sustain appeal and remand case to compensation commissioner, with direction to dismiss claim.
Victor M. Gordon and Arthur B. O'Keefe, both of New Haven, for plaintiff.
DeLancey Pelgrift, of Hartford, for defendants.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
This is a reservation in a workmen's compensation case made by the Superior Court upon its own motion because it was of the opinion that there was a principle of law involved not free from reasonable doubt and the determination of which by this court was required in the public interest. The appeal to the Superior Court sought changes and additions in the finding of the commissioner. Before reserving the question of law to this court the Superior Court made one change in the commissioner's finding, and as no appeal was taken from that action, that change is not open to attack. Plecity v. McLachlan Hat Co., 116 Conn. 216, 219, 164 A. 707. However, had it not been made, our conclusion would have been the same.
The defendant employer, a brewing company, as a part and process of its trade and business, erected signs advertising its products under contracts it entered into with other persons engaged in that kind of work. The company made an oral agreement with the owner of a package store in a building on premises not owned by the company, which gave it permission to enter on the premises, erect a sign on the wall of the building thereon and return in case of need to maintain the sign during a period of two years; and in return for this privilege the company agreed that the name of the operator of the package store should be painted on the sign. The company then entered into an oral contract with one Patzold for the erection of the sign. This was composed of sheets of metal nailed to the side of the building and surrounded by a wooden frame. The plaintiff was a regular employee of Patzold and was sent by him to assist in erecting the sign. In the performance of the work he ascended a ladder which was being held by a fellow employee, but the latter left it, with the result that it fell to the ground and the plaintiff suffered the injuries for which he claims compensation.
The plaintiff seeks recovery against the defendant company under the provision of the compensation law which makes a principal employer liable for compensation when he procures work to be done for him by a contractor or through him by a subcontractor and the work so procured to be done is a part or process in the trade or business of the principal employer and is performed in, on or about premises under his control. General Statutes, § 5230. The issue in the case which was the basis of the reservation by the Superior Court was the proper interpretation of the provision in the statute that to afford a basis of recovery by an employee of a contractor, against the principal employer, the injury must be sustained in the course of work performed ‘ in, on or about premises under his control.’
The language quoted originated in the early British workmen's compensation act; thus, that of 1897 was restricted in its operation to employment ‘ on or in or about a railway factory, mine,’ etc. 60 and 61 Vict., cap. 37, § 7. Later, when the scope of the act was greatly broadened, the phraseology quoted was incorporated in the provision permitting a recovery against a principal employer who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic
...conditions might be assumed to be largely within the control or observation of the principal employer." Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co. , 125 Conn. 109, 112, 3 A.2d 668 (1939). Because "[m]ost compensable injuries are due to conditions of employment the danger from which could be prevented or ......
-
Crisanti v. Cremo Brewing Co.
...Power Co., 130 Conn. 256, 259, 33 A.2d 342; Downing v. Stamford Community Chest, 125 Conn. 728, 729, 4 A.2d 329; Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co., 125 Conn. 109, 111, 3 A.2d 668; Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co., 99 Conn. 353, 364, 122 A. 63. In Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co., supra, we discussed ......
-
Mancini v. Bureau of Public Works of Metropolitan Dist.
...such conditions might be assumed to be largely within the control or observation of the principal employer.' Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co., 125 Conn. 109, 112, 3 A.2d 668, 669. The proposition that the public highway did not constitute a 'premises' over which the defendant in Bates,supra, ex......
-
Murphy, Inc. v. Remodeling, Etc., Inc.
...limited purposes" as described in the agreement, namely, the maintenance of the signs atop the building. In Wilson v. Largay Brewing Co., 125 Conn. 109, 110, 3 A.2d 668 (1939), the defendant entered into an oral agreement with the owner of a package store for permission to enter on the prem......