Norwich bulletin., 1917-02-02
CITY MUST PAY COMPENSATION
Acting Commissioners George Beers Awards Widow of Harry w. Tracy $10 Week for 312 Weeks-Award Subject Modification in Case of Death or Remaniage of Claimant-Death Caused by Injury Received While Cranking City's Automobile. a

time and in that way probable; taking
 into account the unconscious attitude any controversy had arisen-in inquir-
 ing as to the injury in question; and all other clements in the ease, find that the claimant has sus- tained the burden of proof.
 The respondent claimed:
 Respondents Claims.
 First, that the claimant had not es- |tablished by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the death of said Tracy arose from or was due to an in- jury sustained in the course of his em- |p1oyment by the respondent.
 Second, that the claimant had not established by fair preponderanees sof 1.-the evidence that said death was caused by or resulted from an injury arising out of his said employment. Both of thees claims were overruIed. A memorandum is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
 Whereupon, it is awarded and ad- judged that the respondent pay to the claimant, as compensation for the death of said Harry w. Tracy, ten dollars per week for the period of three hundred and twelve weeks beginning Oct 27th, 1916; this award subject to proper modification in case of the death Iof re-marriage of the claimant; and, Further. that the respondent pay one and the medical, surgical and inciden- tai expenses provided by section of
 Part B of said act as amended Memorandum.
 There is much in the able medical testimony adduced by the respondent ways the development of the case, viewed as one originating in blow on the outside of the arm, is not, in all respects, typical. The blow was not to the train of events which I have found followed it. There is much which invites close attention in the theories of the respondent with refer
 ence to the variation from what might be called the normal time schedule of development; and the color of the skin noted on Thursday is in itself an ele- ment which may be fairly said to bear upon the relation of cause and effect which the claimant must establish All of the considerations, however bear upon the probabilities of the case, and to give any other effect to them would be to attribute a certainty to uncertain human movements which is not in accord with the fact, and a cer- tainty to medical science which it's practitioners would hardly claim for it. As to the matter of the blow, &C., cording to the evidence it is not i'm possible that, if the arm had been per lfectly rigid, the stroke from the crank o fthe automobile might have produced rne results which followed, although there would have been a great improb- ability of any such consequence. We all know, however, from common expe- rience that the arm was probably not rigid, and that there may have been
 just the turn or the wrench which. on the testimony, would have tended to so direct the injury to make the serious results found to have followed much more probable. Also in considering the theory as to the time schedule and as to the color it must be viewed in the light of the testimony adduced by the claimant which was quite inconsistent with that theory, and also in the light of the qualifying statements made by the witnesses supporting that theory in
 view of the fact that said witnesses conceded the possibilities of such an
 injury producing the untoward result.
 Connection Between Blow and Death.
 It Is obviously true that if all we
 knew about the case was that the man
 received a certaina blow, no one would
 have had the hardfhood to construct consequence which would have involved
 his death. and the same may be said if
 early history of the case following the
 blow. When, however, we take the
 whole history and consider that there is the fact of the death and the train
 of circumstances which it is pretty
 generally conceded may show the con- nection between blow and death, and
 which by some of the testimony ad- duced show strong probable connec- tion between the blow and the deatI
 we must reach, as it seems to me- the conclusion that, while mathematical demonstration is lacking, the claimant
 has sustained the burden of proof and has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the death did result from the blod. The award is therefore in favor of the claimant
 In this connection I may refer to
 somewhat similar points presented in
 Melia vs. Race Brook Country Club, 1
 Conn Comm noa
 i'd, 661; and Coady vs. Igo, in. 576
 Sustained by the supreme court of err
 TOTS, upon another point. 90 Conn, 9S
 Att. 32S.)