Norwich bulletin., 1920-08-23
MAKES COMPENSATION AWARD
 IN AN UNUSUAL CAsI

Commissioner J. J. Donohue has inst made an award and finding in the work mems compensation claim of PasnaIa orsInl Of 225 Broad street against Ar cnloald Torrance, the contractor, by whom orsini was employed as laborer on May fth, l920, when he was struck anu injured by motorcycle on the hien- way in Montville
 The hearing on the claim was held 10 desAnine whether the injuries receiv- ed. by tn claimant Orsini, arose out of ana Tn the course of his employment. The commissioner finds that they did so arise and the claimant is entitled to cer,ner- sation at the rate of S1210 Der week. accrued payments since May 7tF to be paid in lump sum, and payments to continue for the remainder of the disa- bility period orslnl had one leg broL- en and one knee injured and has been to- tally incapacitated ever since the ac- cident and will be for some time.
 The casa IS one of unusual interest be- cause the unusual circumstances under which the injuries were received. Or s1nl was in the employ of the contrac- Tor on work, at tho plant of tnA Eastern Connes:cut Power Co., plant in Mont Vile, but was hurt while he was on the road where he was waiting for a trolley car to take him hcme at the end of the days work As he was sit ting by the side of the highway, wait Ing TOT the trolley car motor trucs Wen by and the claimant started across the road to board the motor truck ana WAS hit and knocked down by the motor cycle.
 It was brought out in the evidence that the employer punished transporta- ton for the men to and from Norwich and that the trolley car was regularly used. In order to catch the car the men were allowed to quit work little be- fore four o'clock in the afternoon. but made up this time by working a littIe longer at noon. The carfare was added to the mems pay to reimburse them, The employer was found, by his testimony. to have had had knowledge as to in. arrangements about the hours of e1npI9y- ment and ways of getting hume and nev- CT to have objected. The claimant testi- fled that the men sometimes caught a bus or automobile nome and that Bo ob- jection had been made by the emp.oy CT and they never had been told not to do SO
 In his memorandum of decision on the case, Commissioner Denohue says in part: The contract of employment be- tween respondent and claimant required the latter to work outside Of the place of his residence, and the former agreed while claimant was so employed to pay his transportation to and from his em- ployment as part of his contract of employment.
 The actual work began when the claimant reached the plant of the East ern Connecticut Power Co, in Mont vile where the employer had contract ed to have certain work done but the employment of the claimant began when E1A k(nY 1.1l to take him to Montvilie, and the em- ployment ended for the day when the claimant reached Norwich on the re- turn trip at night. The employment also continued during the trip to and from the claimants work. Transports ton to and from his work was identical to his employment hence the employment con tinued during The transportation in the same way as during the work See Latham 6, Crance memorandum refer red to above as filed by Supreme Court of Connecticut.
 The injury in the present case occur red not during the transportation but While the claimant was waiting for means Of transportation and while at tempting to board a passing motor truck going in the required direction. namely toward claimants home, and so the injury can be said to have occurred within the period of his employment and at a place where the claimant had right to be, and while he was doing something identical to his employment because contemplated by it by his em- ployer according to the employers testi mony at the hearing. Therefore the case falls clearly within the construction Which the Supreme Court has placed upon the terms of the Statute arising in the course of adjustment" The injury also arose in the course of the claim ants employment and while he was wait 'ng TOT some means of transportation to his home. consequently the employ ment was the approximate cause of it- and it therefore arose out of the employ nent.
 The commissioner substantiates n,s nndlng by quotations and references of supreme court decisions in the cases of swanson vs Latham & Crane, Marchia- telio vs. The Lynch Realty Go, Luigi vs Fred T. Ley Co.,, and Fiarenzo vs Rich ards.