Norwich bulletin., 1920-06-17
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS CoMMISSIONERsD REPoF

Herewith is given the text of the su- preme court decision which sustains Commissioner J. J. Donohue's finding and affirms his award in a workmen's | compensation case after it had been set aside in an appeal to the superior court. The commissioner made an award of $5 per week for 312 weeks in the case i of John Saunders, administrator, of New London, against the New England Col lapSible Tube Co.,, of that city.
 The following is the supreme court de- cision recently rendered:
 The plaintiffs intestate, Genevieve Saunders, 15 years of age, was employed by The New England Collapsible Tube Company on the third floor of it's fac tory. A number of girls worked on this floor with the deceased. The factory building consisted of several floors an' i it was necessary for the girls employed in the factory to go from one floor to an. i other for the purpose of getting mater l ial as needed, or for the purpose of talk 1 ing finished work to another department | It was customary for the girls so em- | ployed, daily, to use the elevator for this purpose, and they also used the elevator l in going to work in the morning or at 1 noontime and in leaving their place of | employment at night.
 | The decedent used this elevator z. Inis ASA 1 with the defendant.
 On October 24th, 1918, and during working hours the decedent left her | bench and went to the elevator and lean ed her head over the gate and the ele- vator descending crushed her head be- tween the top of the gate and the bot | tom of the elevator.
 No testimony was offered before the commissioner that at the time of her in
 juries the decedent was about to use the elevator in the course of her employ ment, or that at this time she had occa- sion to so use the elevator.
 1 The commissioner awarded compensa- tion to the claimants.
 The superior court on appeal held that the commissioner erred in holding that
 the injuries arose out of and in the
 course of her employment and in requir-
 ing the defendants to prove that the in
 jury did not arise out of and in the
 course of the employment.
 The court set aside the award because it could find no evidence from which it could be found that the accident arose in
 the course of the employment. And the court interpreted the commissioner s finding that "there was no evidence to show that this Saunders girl had reason to use this elevator on this particular day. at this particular hour, nor is there
 
 that there was absolutely no evidence
 from which the commissioner could find the ultimate fact that the accident arose
 out of and in the course of her employ
 ment.
 The entire finding and memorandum of
 decision are to be read together as a
 whole. So read, we think it clear, that
 by the words there is no evidence" the
 commissioner intended to convey the l hot thara test rlf
 statement either from a witness or in 2
 written document of this fact, that i:
 that there was no direct evidence as it i:
 called in common speech, of this fact But he did not intend to exclude iron } consideration the realm of interference } and it was in reliance upon the inference to be drawn from facts in evidence tha 3 the commissioner reached his conclusion 3 The court was in error in thinking tn
 commissioner required theI employer tt
 assume the burden of proving that tn 3 injury did not arise out of and in tn 3 course of the employment.
 I The burden of proof in claim fo Q compensation under the Workingmen' Compensation Act is upon the claiman $ to prove the statutory essentials of hi
 case. He must establish by competen
 evidence that the injuries for which h I seeks compensation arose out of and il 3 he course of his employment. z Sponatski's Case, 220 Mass. 52s. S (108 N. B. 466).
 5 Westmans Case 106 Atl 532, 535. g What the commissioner did was ever day practice with a trial judge, he foun
 the fact in issue as an inference of fac drawn from other facts in the testimony Q The appeal fairly raises the questio 10 whether the inference drawn was unjus 9 tifiabIe. If it was an inference which n reasonable man could not draw in a req Q soning way the finding cannot stand, fo