Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JEREMIAH MAHONEY'S (dependent's) CASE.

Workmen's Compensation Act, Dependency. Words, "Family."

Where, in a claim under the workmen's compensation act by an alleged dependent of a deceased employee, it appears that the employee, who had a minor daughter, lived with his sister and her minor son in a house that formerly had belonged to their mother, who had died intestate, that the sister had the exclusive management of the household affairs and that "nothing was ever said about board" but that weekly payments of the employee contributed toward the support of the household whenever he could obtain employment, and that he also purchased some incidental household furnishings and supplies besides cultivating the garden, it cannot be found that the employee's sister, who was not his next of kin, was a member of his family so as to come within the definition of "Dependents" contained in St. 1911, c. 751, Part V, § 2.

BRALEY, J.

We are of opinion that the decree for the claimant must be reversed, and a decree for the insurer entered. The deceased employee having left a minor daughter, the claimant, his sister, is not the next of kin and can have no claim for compensation unless she was a member of his family partly dependent for support upon his earnings at the time of his death. Kelley's Case, 222 Mass. 538. St. 1911, c. 751, Part V, § 2.

While the claimant, her minor son and the employee lived together in the house formerly owned by the mother of the sister and brother, who died intestate, the claimant is shown to have had the exclusive management of the household affairs. And she and her son undoubtedly constituted a "family." Murphy's Case, 224 Mass. 592. It is uncontroverted that "nothing was ever said about board." But even so, it is plain on the record that the weekly payments of the employee contributed toward the support of the household whenever he could obtain employment, and the purchase of some incidental household furnishings and supplies as well as his cultivation of the garden did not make him the head of a family of which his sister and his nephew could be deemed members. Cowden's Case, 225 Mass. 66.

Ordered accordingly.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MAHONEY'S CASE
(Nov 27, 1917)