MacDonald v. Congdon & Carpenter Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

MacDonald v. Congdon & Carpenter Co.

1 R.I. Dec. 175

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 18, 1925

DocketW.C.A.Pet.No.555

StatusPublished

This text of 1 R.I. Dec. 175 (MacDonald v. Congdon & Carpenter Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacDonald v. Congdon & Carpenter Co., 1 R.I. Dec. 175 (R.I. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

TANNER, P. J.

This is a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

We find, first, that the petitioner has failed to show that he gave any written notice within thirty days after the accident of the happening of the accident, and we find no rea[176]*176son, because ol accident, mistake or unforeseen cause, to excuse it.

For petitioner: Charles R. Easton. For respondent:William S. Flynn.

Second, we And that the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident arose out of or in the course of his employment, since he was forbidden to take his team out without having first seen the superintendent.

Third, we find that the accident was not occasioned intentionally by the plaintiff and under the weight of the evidence did not result from his intoxication.

Fourth, we find that the accident occurred as alleged in the petition.

For these reasons the petition is denied and dismissed.

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