TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cinmino's Case

Eminio Cinmino's (dependent's) Case

Cinmino's Case, 146 N.E. 245 (Mass. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 29, 1925
Judges
Pierce
Citations
146 N.E. 245251 Mass. 1581925 Mass. LEXIS 96237 A.L.R. 769

Opinion of the Court — Pierce

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pierce, J.

This is a proceeding for compensation under G. L. c. 152, by the widow of Eminio Cinmino, to recover compensation for his death while employed by the Revere Rubber Company at its factory in Chelsea. At the hearing before the board member, and again on review before the Industrial Accident Board, it appeared in undisputed evidence that on July 7, 1923, Cinmino, while standing near a bench waiting for stock to carry to an employee, made an outcry, threw up his hands, “reeled around,” and for some physical reason not connected with his employment fell, striking his face on the concrete floor. It was ascertained at the hospital where he was taken that his skull was fractured *159 by the fall upon the floor. He lingered “restless and irrational” until his death on July 14,1923, approximately one week after the accident. The only question is whether the injury which resulted from the described impact of the head with the concrete floor was a risk and hazard of the employment; or, otherwise expressed, was there a causal connection between the conditions under which the work was to be per-. formed and the injury which resulted. McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497 .

We think there is no measurable distinction between the hazard of an employment where the floors are made of concrete and an employment where the floors are of hard wood, of soft wood, or of dirt, because of the fact that one material is of greater or less resiliency than another. To hold that a concrete floor in a place of employment is a danger which affects the risks which an employee encounters and is a hazard which arises out of an employment, would require a further holding, when the occasion arose, that any flooring of any material is a hazard of employment against which the statute gives compensation whenever there is a causal relation between the hazard and the injury. The causal relation in such a case is too remote and speculative for practical application. There is no substantial resemblance between the case at bar and where a man seized with an epilepic fit fell into the hold of a vessel, Wicks v. Dowell & Co. Ltd. |1905] 2 K. B. 225; where a man from physical weakness fell into a machine, Dow’s Case, 231 Mass. 348 ; where a woman caught her heel and fell upon a step, Hallett’s Case, 232 Mass. 49 .

It results that the decree of the Superior Court must be reversed and a decree be entered for the insurer.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 31 cases

View all citing references →
1926: 11930: 11931: 11933: 11935: 11936: 11937: 11938: 11940: 11941: 11944: 21946: 21947: 11950: 11954: 31955: 21957: 11959: 11962: 31963: 11967: 11974: 11975: 12021: 119262026peak 1954 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Henderson v. Celanese Corp.104 A.2d 720 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954)
  2. Luvaul v. A. Ray Barker Motor Company384 P.2d 885 (N.M. 1963)
  3. Bagwell v. Ernest Burwell, Inc.88 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. 1955)
  4. General Ins. Corp v. Wickersham235 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. App. 1950)
  5. Henderson v. Celanese Corp.108 A.2d 267 (N.J. 1954)
  6. American General Insurance Company v. Barrett300 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. App. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Clements v. Aramark Corp.339 Conn. 402 (2021)
  2. Franquet v. Imperial Management Corp.341 A.2d 881 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)
  3. Rosemowicz's Case309 N.E.2d 215 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
  4. Zuchowski v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY229 A.2d 61 (R.I. 1967)
  5. Luvaul v. A. Ray Barker Motor Company384 P.2d 885 (N.M. 1963)
  6. Howard v. Ford Motor Company363 S.W.2d 61 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497 (1913) 458
Dow's Case, 231 Mass. 348 (1918) 27
Hallett's Case, 121 N.E. 503 (Mass. 1919) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list