Norwich bulletin., 1915-06-23


The Second district, Or. James ].
George E Parsons of the superior
court his findings and awards in two
cases on which hearings were recently
held before him
The first was in the case Of Joseph
Sigona of New London, a claimant
against the New London Ship and En-
gine company of Groton, by whom he
was employed at the average weekly
wage >of $1o.12, and while in that en-
ploy1uent received an injury which re-
suited in the loss of the ring finger Of
his left hand
The commissioner finds and orders
that the company shall pay the in
jured employee forthwith the sum of
$126.50. which is compensation at
$5.G6 per week for 20 weeks, for the
loss of the third finger of the left
hand, together with what medical ser
vices were rendered by the doctor
lowing the injury.
It is found that the injury occurred
on Nov. 6, 1914, while Sigona was
lifting some exhaust pipe, and that
periostitis followed the confusion of
the bone, making necessary the am
putation of the entire ring finger of
the left hand. Aff1davits from the
Boston City hospital and the City hos
pital of Quincy, Mass. and from a
doctor were produced to show that
the claimant was suffering from a
systemic disease, but this is not found
to be the immediate and proximate
cause of this disability; that it may
be contributory is questionable. The
loss of this specific member would not
have occurred were there not a direct
exciting cause, and. this is found in
the injury received. The hearing was
held on June 16.
Colchester Case.
In the case of Frank Sinner of
Moodus, claimant, against the town
of Colchester and Stephen Brainard of
Colchester, respondents, the commits
sioner finds that the respondents are to
pay the claimant forthwith $500, which
is compensation at IS per week for
104 weeks. for the complete loss of the
sight of one eye, together with any
medical, surgical and hospital ser
vices rendered for the 80 days follow
ing the injury.
weekly wage Of the employe was SO,
and the claimant testified that on
April 1, 1915, while cutting brush at
the roadside in the Westchester dis
trict of Colchester using hedge shears,
a live branch from a huckleberry bush
flew up and struck him in the right
eye. He lost the sight of the eye.
memorandum OF OeCtSiOns
In a memorandum of decision, Com
missioner Donohue states:
This case seems to be one in which
there appears to be some question as
to responsibility for compensation for
the injuries sustained by the claim
ant.
The evidence shows that Stephen
Brainard employed frank Sinner and
charged the town of Colchester at the
rate of $3.50 per day for his services
The position occupied by Mr.. Brainard
seems to be that of supervisor in the
employ of the town of Colchester. as
the wages of the employee were
charged directly to the town. Consid-
eriug that there might arise a question
as to who the responsible party is, the
award has been made against both
parties named as respondents. and
that is a matter which they may de-
eide among themselves.
1t was claimed by the attorney for
the town of Colchester that he had
three witnesses. all of whom stated
that at 10 o'clock in the forenoon on
April LIST there was about Is minutes
more work TO be done, and that the
injury did not occur until about 8
o'clock in the afternoon. All the wit
nesses for the respondent evidently
conferred upon the length of time in
which the remainder of the work
might have been done after 10 o'clock,
for they all seemed to be of the same
opinion as to the Is minutes while
the claimant stated that it would have
taken him probably one-half hour more
after o'clock to have completed the
work If he had not been injured 1t
would be a difficult matter to decide
precisely and definitely the length of
time required to accomplish a certain
amount of work in cutting brush and
clearing a roadside. The purpose of
this testimony of the witnesses for the
respondent was intended to show that
the injury might have occurred al
some place and at some time other
than while in the employ of the re-
spondentS, but no attempt was made
to prove the same.
The point was raised also as to
whether the claimant was disposing of
the brush and using an axe or shears,
but the testimony offered on this point
was of very inmaterial nature.
The claim was also made by the
respondents that the claimant was
casual employee, but under the opinion
of the attorney general under the COM
pensatiou act, casual employees stand
in the same light as any other en-
ploye. In fact, before the law was
amended, every contract of employ
ment came within the scope of the
law.
1t is further claimed by the re-
spondents that the town cannot be held
responsible on account of the fact
that taking care of the roads is a
Vernmental duty imposed by statute
upon the town by the state, but in one
act in paragraph 43, under definitions
this state Is specifically included as an
employer, and the governmental duties
of towns, which are arms or branches