From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Sargent

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 7, 1933
168 A. 877 (Conn. 1933)

Opinion

The exception in the Compensation Act of employers having "regularly less than five employees" looks primarily to the number of employees the particular employer has and only incidentally to the circumstances of the employment of each. The defendant regularly employed three persons, and in addition she employed a hairdresser who came to her home every Tuesday and a seamstress who came to the home one Monday a month. Held that the defendant was not within the terms of the compensation law.

Argued October 6th, 1933

Decided November 7th, 1933.

APPEAL from a finding and award of the compensation commissioner for the third district, denying the plaintiff's claim for compensation, taken to the Superior Court in New Haven County, O'Sullivan, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, from which the plaintiff appealed. No error.

Ellsworth B. Foote and John Clark Fitzgerald, with whom, on the brief, was David E. Fitzgerald, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).

Stanley Daggett, with whom, on the brief, was J. Dwight Dana, for the appellee (defendant).


The sole issue presented upon this appeal is whether or not the compensation commissioner was correct in holding that the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant was not within the terms of the compensation law, a decision which he based upon the ground that the defendant had "regularly less than five employees." General Statutes, § 5227. It is agreed that the defendant regularly employed three persons, a cook, a waitress and a chauffeur. In addition she employed a hairdresser who came to her home to dress her hair every Tuesday except when the defendant was out of town or ill, and a seamstress who came to the home one Monday a month and stayed all day. The hairdresser practiced her profession by appointment in the homes of her customers, and the seamstress carried on her trade by appointment at the homes of her customers or at her own home.

The exception in the statute looks primarily to the number of employees the particular employer has and only incidentally to the circumstances of the employment of each. See Green v. Benedict, 102 Conn. 1, 128 A. 20; Schneider v. Raymond, 103 Conn. 49, 130 A. 73; Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 130 A. 672; Guse v. Industrial Commission, 189 Wis. 471, 205 N.W. 428; LaCroix v. Frechette, 50 R. I. 90, 93, 145 A. 314; Vandergriff v. Shepard, 39 Ga. App. 791, 148 S.E. 596. In Schneider v. Raymond, supra, p. 53, we said of the decision in Green v. Bene-dict, supra: "As the reasoning of that opinion necessarily implies, the statutory exception refers to the size of the group of the persons employed throughout the period in question, and not to the total number of persons who may have entered and left the employment from the beginning to the end of the period. Here there is no evidence that the size of the group employed ever exceeded four, prior to the claimant's injury, and if the finding were corrected by setting forth the undisputed subordinate facts, it would require a conclusion that the respondents regularly employed less than five." Such was the situation in the case before us. The hairdresser came to the defendant's home only on Tuesdays, the seamstress only one Monday a month, and except when they were there, they were not in her employment. This case is not like Green v. Benedict, supra, where at times the employer had five or more employees and at times less. On no day did the size of the group employed by the defendant ever exceed four. To go no further, it is clear that the decision of the trial court in dismissing the appeal was correct.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Sargent

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 7, 1933
168 A. 877 (Conn. 1933)
Case details for

Fisher v. Sargent

Case Details

Full title:GRACE FISHER vs. FLORENCE W. SARGENT

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 7, 1933

Citations

168 A. 877 (Conn. 1933)
168 A. 877

Citing Cases

Smith v. Butler

It is competent for parties to agree to pay interest on items in a running account, and such an agreement may…

Jenkins v. Reichert

While 5230 of the General Statutes makes a "principal employer" liable, under prescribed conditions, for…