Gauthier v. Connecticut Institute of Hairdressing, Inc.

Connecticut Superior Court

Gauthier v. Connecticut Institute of Hairdressing, Inc.

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 324, 15 Conn. Supp. 324, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1947

DocketFile 73525

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 324 (Gauthier v. Connecticut Institute of Hairdressing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gauthier v. Connecticut Institute of Hairdressing, Inc., 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 324, 15 Conn. Supp. 324, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

KING, J.

This was a complaint claiming damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained because of negligence. The demurrer, although not separated into grounds as it should have been, sets up, in effect (1) that it does not appear that the parties were not under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and (2) that if they were not the plaintiff would be barred by the defense of negligence of a fellow servant.

There is no presumption that an employer has five or more employees so as to bring him under the Compensation Act under General Statutes, § 5227. Indeed, the proper and usual method of raising the question is by a plea to the jurisdiction. Pallanck v. Donovan, 105 Conn. 591, 592. But whatever method of pleading is adopted the burden is on the defendant to show that it employs five or more persons so as to come under the Compensation Act. § 5227, second sentence. This is quite apart from any question of refusal of acceptance, either by an employer of five or more, or by 'his employee, under § 5229, or of any question whether the plaintiff’s employment was of a casual nature and disconnected with the employer’s trade or business, under § 5223. Since it does not appear from the allegations of the complaint that the defendant employs five or more employees, the first ground of demurrer must be overruled.

Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint indicate that concurrent negligence of the master and of the fellow servant is relied upon. To this, the defense of negligence of a fellow servant has never applied. Wilson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn. 433, 466. It follows that this ground of demurrer, also, is in-efficacious.

For the foregoing reasons the demurrer is overruled on both grounds.

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

KING, J.

This was a complaint claiming damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained because of negligence. The demurrer, although not separated into grounds as it should have been, sets up, in effect (1) that it does not appear that the parties were not under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and (2) that if they were not the plaintiff would be barred by the defense of negligence of a fellow servant.

There is no presumption that an employer has five or more employees so as to bring him under the Compensation Act under General Statutes, § 5227. Indeed, the proper and usual method of raising the question is by a plea to the jurisdiction. Pallanck v. Donovan, 105 Conn. 591, 592. But whatever method of pleading is adopted the burden is on the defendant to show that it employs five or more persons so as to come under the Compensation Act. § 5227, second sentence. This is quite apart from any question of refusal of acceptance, either by an employer of five or more, or by 'his employee, under § 5229, or of any question whether the plaintiff’s employment was of a casual nature and disconnected with the employer’s trade or business, under § 5223. Since it does not appear from the allegations of the complaint that the defendant employs five or more employees, the first ground of demurrer must be overruled.

Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint indicate that concurrent negligence of the master and of the fellow servant is relied upon. To this, the defense of negligence of a fellow servant has never applied. Wilson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn. 433, 466. It follows that this ground of demurrer, also, is in-efficacious.

For the foregoing reasons the demurrer is overruled on both grounds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 324, 15 Conn. Supp. 324, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gauthier-v-connecticut-institute-of-hairdressing-inc-connsuperct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack