Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co.

102 A. 604, 92 Conn. 274, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 124
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedDecember 15, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 102 A. 604 (Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., 102 A. 604, 92 Conn. 274, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 124 (Colo. 1917).

Opinion

Roraback, J.

Generally speaking, “an injury to an employee may be said to arise 'in the course of his employment,’ when it occurs within the period of his employment, at a place where he reasonably may be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment, or is engaged in doing something incidental to it.” Larke v. Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320; Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116, 119, 96 Atl. 368.

The controlling question here presented is whether *277 Richards, the plaintiff, when injured, was actually-doing the work he was employed to do, or whether he was doing something substantially different. He was injured while on duty, in his working hours, when waiting for an opportunity to continue his service of employment. The accident occurred when the plaintiff was at a place where he might reasonably be. There was no turning aside upon his part, no attempt to serve ends of his own.

The fact that he fell asleep, under the circumstances. set forth in the finding, was not decisive of his claim. This at the most was negligence, and our Compensation Act of 1913 expressly provides that in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by an employee, arising out of and in the course of his employment, it shall not be a defense that the injured employee was negligent.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Dayal v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
321 S.E.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Culberson v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Company
286 S.W.2d 813 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1956)
Jefferson County Stone Co. v. Bettler
199 S.W.2d 986 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1947)
United Employers Casualty Co. v. Barker
148 S.W.2d 260 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Iliff v. Norwalk Tire & Rubber Co.
16 A.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1940)
Meem-Haskins Coal Corporation v. Bach
128 S.W.2d 913 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1939)
Hoard v. Sears Roebuck Co., Inc.
188 A. 269 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1936)
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Lawrence
14 S.W.2d 949 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co.
140 A. 728 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1928)
Guiliano v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons
136 A. 677 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1927)
Gasca v. Texas Pipe Line Co.
2 La. App. 483 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Ex Parte De Bardeleben Coal Co.
103 So. 548 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Imperial Brass Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission
137 N.E. 411 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1922)
Weis Paper Mill Co. v. Industrial Commission
127 N.E. 732 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1920)
Barber Ex Rel. Barber v. George R. Jones Shoe Co.
108 A. 690 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1919)
De Luca v. Board of Park Commissioners
107 A. 611 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1919)
Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission
170 N.W. 366 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A. 604, 92 Conn. 274, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-indianapolis-abattoir-co-conn-1917.