Cirame's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cirame's Case

196 N.E.2d 222, 346 Mass. 783, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 889

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 N.E.2d 222 (Cirame's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cirame's Case, 196 N.E.2d 222, 346 Mass. 783, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 889 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. The employee was a truck driver who found himself locked in his employer’s building at the end of a day’s work. He tried several doors without success and finally noticed an open window with a ledge below it on the second floor. Stepping through the window and down onto the ledge, he proceeded to hang from the ledge by his hands and drop to the ground. He landed hard on his heels and sustained severe fractures of both ankles. The single member found that while the employee may have demonstrated poor judgment, he had been of the opinion that he had only a four foot [784]*784jump to negotiate, “which he felt he could manage,” and that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. The reviewing board adopted the findings of the single member in awarding workmen’s compensation to the employee. The Superior Court entered a final decree in his favor. The record supports the finding of no serious or wilful misconduct in the fall of the employee. The decision of the single member had ample warrant on principles which have been repeatedly stated. See Baran’s Case, 336 Mass. 342; Vaz’s Case, 342 Mass. 495, 498. Costs under G. L. c. 152, § 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

Philander S. Ratzkoff for the insurer. Joseph Bear for the employee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Decree affirmed. The employee was a truck driver who found himself locked in his employer’s building at the end of a day’s work. He tried several doors without success and finally noticed an open window with a ledge below it on the second floor. Stepping through the window and down onto the ledge, he proceeded to hang from the ledge by his hands and drop to the ground. He landed hard on his heels and sustained severe fractures of both ankles. The single member found that while the employee may have demonstrated poor judgment, he had been of the opinion that he had only a four foot [784]*784jump to negotiate, “which he felt he could manage,” and that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. The reviewing board adopted the findings of the single member in awarding workmen’s compensation to the employee. The Superior Court entered a final decree in his favor. The record supports the finding of no serious or wilful misconduct in the fall of the employee. The decision of the single member had ample warrant on principles which have been repeatedly stated. See Baran’s Case, 336 Mass. 342; Vaz’s Case, 342 Mass. 495, 498. Costs under G. L. c. 152, § 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

Philander S. Ratzkoff for the insurer. Joseph Bear for the employee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 222, 346 Mass. 783, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cirames-case-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack