APPEAL from a decision and award of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed December 2, 1952, awarding death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law to a widow.
Morgan F. Bisselle and Warren C. Tucker for appellants.
Max Epstein for claimant-respondent.
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (John J. Quinn and Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen's Compensation Board, respondent.
Decedent Didrik Johansen had a small cabinetmaking shop but was irregularly employed as a carpenter by appellant Gray who is engaged in the general contracting business. The weeks during which decedent worked for the employer as a carpenter and the amounts paid are reflected in the employer's regular records.
On August 20, 1948, the decedent and the employer had a conversation. The employer asked decedent to build and install some cabinets in the home of the employer's mother. Decedent was to be paid for this work not in cash but by the repair of the foundation of a building on which decedent was working, such repair to be done by the employer.
After the cabinet installation work performed by the decedent was finished and while the employer was driving decedent away from the site of the work, an accident occurred in which the employer's car was involved and decedent was killed.
An action at law was instituted by claimant as administratrix against the employer in the Supreme Court. One of the defenses asserted by the employer Gray in answer to this action was that such defendant was engaged in the business of carpenter and contractor; that the decedent was at the time of the accident 'employed * * * as a carpenter in connection with the business' of defendant; that it was a hazardous occupation; that the ride in employer's automobile was while deceased
'was still engaged in the course of his employment as a carpenter' and that the Workmen's Compensation Law therefore gave the administratrix her exclusive remedy.
The jury rendered a special verdict finding that at the time of the accident deceased was engaged in the course of his employment with the employer; and judgment in favor of the employer defendant was entered reciting the special verdict of the jury upon which that part of the judgment was based.
The ground on which an award in compensation is sought to be reversed now by the employer appellant and his carrier is in singular disregard of the previous judgment in his favor. It is, to quote Point I of his brief: 'At the time of the accident deceased was ...