Connolly v. Miron, 233 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Connolly v. Miron, 233 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: MICHAEL MEEHAN v. LAZER SPOT, INC., & Another. (massappct, 2024-09-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MICHAEL MEEHAN v. LAZER SPOT, INC., & Another.
Mass. App. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
Similarly, in the present case there is no dispute that Lazer Spot and its employees had permission to access the parking area; the plaintiff was heading to the designated parking lot, where he "parks his car," to go home; and he was injured while on premises where his employment carried him and exposed him to this risk.[6] See Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654, 655 (1968) (injury to plaintiff arose out of and in course of his employment where he and defendant "were departing their employer's premises immediately following their work, and injury occurred in a parking space provided for them bot…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. Pelletier
Mass. App. Ct. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Adiletto v. Brockton Cut Sole Corp., 322 Mass. 110, 112 (1947); Baran’s Case, 336 Mass. at 344 ; Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654, 655 (1968), and cases cited in these decisions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson
Md. · 1977 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Saala v. McFarland, 63 Cal. 2d 124 , 403 P. 2d 400 , 45 Cal. Rptr. 144, 145 (19651; Foust v. Birds Eye Division of General Foods Corp., 91 Idaho 418 , 422 P. 2d 616, 617 (1967); Chmelik v. Vana, 31 Ill. 2d 272 , 201 N.E.2d 434, 438-39 (1964); Hoyos v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885, 887 (1962); Harlan Appalachian Regional Hospital v. Taylor, 424 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky. 1968); Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654 , 233 N.E.2d 753, 754 (1968); Queen v. General Motors Corporation, 38 Mich. App. 630 , 196 N.W.2d 875, 878 (1972); Malinka v. Mugavero, 27 App. Div.2d 691, …
discussed Cited "see" Mulford v. Mangano
Mass. App. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654 (1968); Mendes v. Tin Kee Ng, supra. Contrast Comeau v. Herbert, 352 Mass. 634, 635 (1967), where the record did not show that the accident occurred within the common employer’s parking lot.
cited Cited "see" Mendes v. Tin Kee Ng
Mass. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654 (1968).
cited Cited "see" Saharceski v. Marcure
Mass. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654 (1968). 2 In Gould’s Case, 215 Mass. 480, 486 (1913), we construed the Workmen’s Compensation Act as applicable only to injuries received in this State.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frederick Connolly vs. Alfred Miron
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Feb 7, 1968.
233 N.E.2d 753
1968 Mass. LEXIS 708
The action was tried before Vallely, J., William C. O'Neil, Jr., for the defendant., John M. Shea, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.
Wilkins, Spalding, Cutter, Iciric, Reardon.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Reardon, J.

The plaintiff in this action of tort sought to recover for injuries sustained in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant. Both were employees of the Heald Machine Company in Worcester which was insured under G. L. c. 152. ■ They were employed on the same shift but in different departments. At the conclusion of their work on the day of the accident, about 3:25 p.m., they left their work, washed and changed clothing, and proceeded to a parking lot owned by their employer. About 3:40 p.m., while operating their respective automobiles in the parking space, a collision occurred. The parking space was divided into areas appropriately marked for the parking of automobiles and was used exclusively by employees of the machine company while they were at work, the company having made provisions to that end. Neither party had reserved[*655] his rights at common law under G. L. c. 152, § 24. The court denied a motion by the defendant that a verdict be directed for him, and to this denial the defendant took an exception. The jury thereafter returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff relies upon a recent decision, Comeau v. Hebert, 352 Mass. 634, where we held that the circumstances permitted recovery. In the Comeau case the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured during the course of his employment by the defendant who had for a period been through work for the day and who operated the car which struck the plaintiff on premises not shown to be owned by or in the control of the employer.

The defendant argues that this case is to be governed by Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633. In the latter case the plaintiff sustained his injury while engaged in directing other employees, including the defendant, in parking their automobiles prior to their day’s work in a lot owned by their common employer.

In our view decision of the issue presented to us is to be governed by the Murphy case which on its facts is more closely similar to this case than Comeau v. Hebert, supra. A ruling was required that the injury to the plaintiff arose out of and in the course of his employment by the machine company. He and the defendant were departing their employer’s premises immediately following their work, and injury occurred in a parking space provided for them both by their employer. Adiletto v. Brockton Cut Sole Corp. 322 Mass. 110, 112, and cases cited. See Rogers’s Case, 318 Mass. 308, 309, and cases cited.

Exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.