129 A. 539 | Conn. | 1925
Walter Linsky was a deck-hand and one of the crew employed on the oyster boat "Standard" engaged in dredging oysters. On July 15th, 1922, at the finish of the day's work, the boat was docked at the foot of Pembroke Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut, in navigable water of the United States. Linsky, while so employed, went on shore after the finish of his day's work and returned to the boat between nine and nine-thirty of the evening of this day, and lay down to sleep on the deck upon the hatch between two fellow employees. About midnight it was discovered that he had fallen from the boat into the water, and in consequence he drowned. The commissioner found that "the accident which led to his death arose out of and in the course of his employment," and awarded compensation to the claimants.
The defendant employer, in its appeal from the finding and award of the commissioner, assigns as errors certain refusals to correct the finding and, as a further error, that the commissioner had no jurisdiction in the premises, because Linsky was engaged under a *514 maritime contract and was killed by falling off a boat, when the same was in navigable water of the United States. The court passed upon the errors based upon the motion to correct the finding, and added three of the paragraphs of the motion, and then, of its own motion, reserved the questions of law raised by reasons of appeal one, two, three, eight, nine and ten upon the finding as thus corrected. In the present case the practice pursued by the trial court in passing upon the errors relating to the corrections of the finding and then reserving the other questions of law was a desirable practice to pursue, since neither party desired to have the ruling on the errors relating to corrections of the finding reviewed. But in a case where either party purposed to have or were likely to have such ruling reviewed, the practice should not be pursued as it would be apt to unnecessarily complicate the appeal.
The correction of the finding of the commissioner by the trial court, leads us to restate the scope of the power of the court to make such correction. The commissioner is an administrative officer. The appeal to the Superior Court from his finding and award is an "original application to the Superior Court to exercise its appropriate judicial power in respect to acts done by the administrative tribunal in excess of its power, or in the unlawful abuse of that power." Powers v.Hotel Bond Co.,
"The power of the Superior Court in the correction *515
of a finding of a compensation commissioner is analogous to, and its method of correcting the finding similar to, the power and method of this court in correcting the finding of the Superior Court." Thompson v.Twiss,
The Superior Court can correct the finding of the commissioner so as to strike out facts found without evidence, or to add facts which are admitted or undisputed facts. Palumbo v. Fuller Co.,
A correction of the finding of a fact by an inference drawn, may also be made when it was an inference "which a reasonable man could not draw in a reasoning way, . . . for it would then be so unreasonable as to justify judicial interference." Saunders v. New EnglandCollapsible Tube Co.,
Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co.,
In Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,
A reargument of the case was had, and four justices dissented, while two of these, Mr. Justice Holmes and *519 Mr. Justice Pitney, controvert the grounds of this decision in opinions of exceptional ability, leaving little else to be said by way of argument or judicial research or analysis.
At the same time the Jensen case was decided, another case, Clyde Steamship Co. v. Walker,
In Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.,
This was reiterated by Mr. Justice Day as the ground of the decision in Union Fish Co. v. Erickson,
On October 6th, 1917, five months after the Jensen
case was decided, Congress amended § 9 of the Judiciary Act by adding "and to claimants the rights and *520
remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any State." 40 U.S. Stat. at Large, 395. In February, 1918, the Louisiana Supreme Court held the amendment of Congress retroactive and constitutional and sustained an award under its contractual Compensation Act. In Thornton v. Grand Trunk-MilwaukeeCar Ferry Co.,
In 1920, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reached like conclusions in O'Brien v. Scandinavian-AmericanLine,
In Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia,
Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde,
In Washington v. Dawson Co. and IndustrialAccident Commission v. Rolph Co.,
Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co. v. Kierejewski,
We have made this resume of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for the purpose of demonstrating by them that that court had conclusively and finally adopted the ruling in the Jensen case, and that it is entirely clear from its opinions and those of the State courts, which it had before it, that it intended in the application of its ruling no distinction to be made between the compulsory and the elective or contractual Compensation Act.
We have given careful thought to the fact, as evidenced by the course of decision and of the two amendments of Congress, that professional and judicial opinion had been reluctant to accept the doctrine of the Jensen case, to the large number of thoughtful and learned articles in legal publications in criticism of its doctrine, to the exposition of the admiralty jurisdiction presented in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice *528 Holmes, Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis, and to the claim that the Jensen case nullifies all workmen's compensation law so far as concerns injuries occurring on navigable water while engaged in maritime work, since no Federal law could satisfy the social needs of the several States, but we do not think the examination of the question of the admiralty jurisdiction is now before us. That was determined, so far as it is involved in this case, by the Jensen case, which controls our present decision. Few subjects in recent years have been presented to the court with more clearness, power and persistency than has the doctrine involved in the Jensen case; that court has had every opportunity to satisfy itself of its soundness, and its continued reiteration of the doctrine of this case must be accepted as its final word.
At the time the Kennerson case was decided, no courts, so far as we know, had decided this point, but when the Jensen case was decided all State courts which had passed upon the point in cases of award made under Compensation Acts for injuries occurring on navigable water while engaged in maritime work, had decided in accordance with the conclusion reached by this court. Lindstrom v. Mutual Steamship Co.,
The Superior Court is advised to sustain the appeal from the Commissioner and vacate his award.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.