Watrous v. Sosnowitz & Lotstein

Connecticut Superior Court

Watrous v. Sosnowitz & Lotstein

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 261, 7 Conn. Supp. 261, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 27, 1939

DocketFile 54318

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 261 (Watrous v. Sosnowitz & Lotstein) 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

Watrous v. Sosnowitz & Lotstein, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 261, 7 Conn. Supp. 261, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

*262 SIMPSON, J.

The claimant claimed that he was in the employ of the named defendant when injured. The parties were at issue upon that question before the commissioner. The burden was upon the claimant to prove his contention.

The compensation commissioner has found that he was not so employed, but was in fact in the employ of one Louis Lot-stein. The claimant seeks to correct this finding by adding thereto many subordinate facts from which he claims a conclusion that he was in the employ of the named defendant would reasonably follow.

A perusal of the evidence indicates that there- was direct evidence that claimant was working in a store owned by Louis Lotstein, and also that he was engaged by Louis Lotstein. There was some circumstantial evidence tending to show that the store was a branch of the named defendant’s business and that he was hired by the senior Lotstein. It was the duty of the commissioner to consider all this evidence, and it is to be presumed that he did do so. He was the judge of the facts. Even if all the subordinate facts were added to the finding which claimant seeks to be added, it would not follow as a necessary conclusion or as a matter of law that claimant was in the employ of the named defendant. It would remain a question of fact for the commissioner and his finding will have to stand unless it appears to be so unreasonable upon the whole evidence that it ought not to be sustained. It does not so appear and will therefore have to stand. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

*262 SIMPSON, J.

The claimant claimed that he was in the employ of the named defendant when injured. The parties were at issue upon that question before the commissioner. The burden was upon the claimant to prove his contention.

The compensation commissioner has found that he was not so employed, but was in fact in the employ of one Louis Lot-stein. The claimant seeks to correct this finding by adding thereto many subordinate facts from which he claims a conclusion that he was in the employ of the named defendant would reasonably follow.

A perusal of the evidence indicates that there- was direct evidence that claimant was working in a store owned by Louis Lotstein, and also that he was engaged by Louis Lotstein. There was some circumstantial evidence tending to show that the store was a branch of the named defendant’s business and that he was hired by the senior Lotstein. It was the duty of the commissioner to consider all this evidence, and it is to be presumed that he did do so. He was the judge of the facts. Even if all the subordinate facts were added to the finding which claimant seeks to be added, it would not follow as a necessary conclusion or as a matter of law that claimant was in the employ of the named defendant. It would remain a question of fact for the commissioner and his finding will have to stand unless it appears to be so unreasonable upon the whole evidence that it ought not to be sustained. It does not so appear and will therefore have to stand. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 261, 7 Conn. Supp. 261, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watrous-v-sosnowitz-lotstein-connsuperct-1939.