Yates v. City of Salem
| Decision Date | 27 April 1961 |
| Citation | 342 Mass. 460,174 N.E.2d 368 |
| Parties | Robert F. YATES v. CITY OF SALEM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joseph P. McKay, Salem, for plaintiff.
Alfred A. Dobrosielski, City Sol., Salem, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, CUTTER and KIRK, JJ.
The plaintiff, a regular police officer of Salem, brings this action of contract to recover from the city wages alleged to be due from October 18, 1959, to the date of the writ, December 1, 1959. The case was presented to a judge of the Superior Court on a statement of agreed facts. Therein it appeared that on September 16, 1958, his 'day off,' the plaintiff was assigned by his superior officer to perform traffic duty for a private contractor who was engaged in the relocation of the old Salem depot. Although not required to do so, the plaintiff accepted the assignment and was paid by the contractor. He 'worked under the direction of the private contractor, State engineer and/or the City Marshal.' While in uniform 'performing the work of a police officer' on Washington Street, he was struck by a motor vehicle 'without fault of his own' and received an injury which totally incapacitated him for duty. He was granted leave without loss of pay from September 17, 1958, until October 17, 1959, except for a period from January 1 through February 8, 1959. On October 17, 1959, his name was removed from the payroll of the Salem police department and from October 18, 1959, he 'continued on leave with loss of pay.' As of the date of the statement of agreed facts he remained totally incapacitated for duty because of his injury.
General Laws c. 41, § 111F, inserted by St.1952, c. 419, provides that 'Whenever a police officer * * * of a city * * * is incapacitated for duty because of injury sustained in the performance of his duty without fault of his own, he shall be granted leave without loss of pay for the period of such incapacity'; but 'no such leave shall be granted for any period after such police officer * * * has been retired or pensioned in accordance with law or for any period after a physician designated by the board or officer authorized to appoint police officers * * * in such city * * * determines that such incapacity no longer exists.' It was agreed that this statute applies to Salem and that the plaintiff has not been examined by a physician so designated. The defendant moved that 'upon the pleadings, opening and upon all the evidence, a verdict be ordered in its favor.' This motion was treated as a motion 'for finding' for the defendant and was allowed subject to the plaintiff's exception.
The statement of agreed facts is in effect a case stated. G.L. c. 231, § 126. We are free to draw therefrom such inferences and reach such conclusions as we think are warranted. Hayes v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 310 Mass. 81, 37 N.E.2d 121; Caissie v. City of Cambridge, 317 Mass. 346, 347, 58 N.E.2d 169. The parties must have meant by the term 'traffic duty' the duty commonly performed by police officers in directing and controlling vehicular traffic. The plaintiff was a public officer (Buttrick v. City of Lowell, 1 Allen 172; Hathaway v. City of Everett, 205 Mass. 246, 91 N.E. 296) obligated to perform this duty in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. City of Malden
...did in the streets"), rev'd on other grounds Davis v. Westwood Grp., 420 Mass. 739, 652 N.E.2d 567 (1995) ; Yates v. City of Salem, 342 Mass. 460, 461-62, 174 N.E.2d 368 (1961) (holding that a police officer who was paid by a contractor to perform traffic control on his day off was "perform......
-
Hall-Omar Baking Co. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industries
...out in G.L. c. 101. On this case stated we are free to draw such inferences as we think justified. G.L. c. 231, § 126. Yates v. Salem, 342 Mass. 460, 461, 174 N.E. 368. The agreed facts do not state it, but we infer that the sales of bakery products and dairy products from the trucks are at......
-
Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority
... ... Waszczyk (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 408, 342 N.E.2d 261; Fisher v. City of Aledo (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 190, 318 N.E.2d 305.) For a judgment to be found to be against the ... ...
-
Wormstead v. Town Manager of Saugus
...who were 'off duty,' in the sense of not being paid for their labors, at the moment they sustained their injuries. Yates v. Salem, 342 Mass. 460, 462, 774 N.E.2d 368 (1961). Canavan's Case, --- Mass. ---, --- - ---, f 308 N.E.2d 534 (1974). Nevertheless, our cases also show that whether the......