Pistachio v. Martinique Restaurant

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Pistachio v. Martinique Restaurant

2 R.I. Dec. 126

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 5, 1926

DocketW.C.A.No.564

StatusPublished

This text of 2 R.I. Dec. 126 (Pistachio v. Martinique Restaurant) 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

Pistachio v. Martinique Restaurant, 2 R.I. Dec. 126 (R.I. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

TANNER, P. J.

This is a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act in which the petitioner claims that he was employed in a restaurant, and that he had eaten a meal of blue fish and Creole sauce at 2:15 P. M. •on January 30, that said meal was a part of his compensation; that fifteen minutes therafterwards he became ill and suffered from acute poisoning toy reason of eating food which contained noxious bacilli. .

Upon a consideration of thé conflicting medical testimony in the case we do not think that the petitioner has proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that his illness was caused as he alleged, but that he rather suffered from a severe case of constipation. We therefore think that he did not suffer from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as alleged in his petition.

The petition must therefore be denied and dismissed.

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

TANNER, P. J.

This is a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act in which the petitioner claims that he was employed in a restaurant, and that he had eaten a meal of blue fish and Creole sauce at 2:15 P. M. •on January 30, that said meal was a part of his compensation; that fifteen minutes therafterwards he became ill and suffered from acute poisoning toy reason of eating food which contained noxious bacilli. .

Upon a consideration of thé conflicting medical testimony in the case we do not think that the petitioner has proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that his illness was caused as he alleged, but that he rather suffered from a severe case of constipation. We therefore think that he did not suffer from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as alleged in his petition.

The petition must therefore be denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 R.I. Dec. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pistachio-v-martinique-restaurant-risuperct-1926.