OPINION RELATIVE TO STATUS OF FIREMEN INJURED DURING MEAL HOUR.

OPINION RELATIVE TO STATUS OF FIREMEN INJURED DURING MEAL HOUR.

在康涅狄格州的哈特福德消防委员会已经收到Corporation Counsel Coogan an opinion settling a question that arose at a board meeting a few weeks ago as to the status of a fireman injured during his meal hour. At the previous meeting some of the board held that in such a case the fireman was not entitled to more than half pay, which is the usual allowance to a member incapacitated by sickness, while others held that as a fireman was expected to answer alarms during meal hours he was “on duty.” The question largely involved the point of difference between “on duty” and “on fire duty.” The matter came up through an application for pay for Fireman William F. Nolan. The board allowed half pay at the time and then asked the corporation counsel for an opinion so as to find out if more than half pay should be granted. The letter of the corporation counsel follows:—"You ask for my advice on the petition of William F. Nolan for pay for time lost, by reason of injuries. It appears that Nolan was injured while on his bicycle returning to engine house No. 5, by being struck by an automobile. Section 3 of Section 56 of the Revised Ordinances, as amended by amendment approved March 15th, 1911, reads as follows:—‘At the discretion of the board of Fire Commissioners allowance may be made for time lost through injury received in line of duty, and also allowance of half pay for time lost by reason of sickness.’ What is meant by the expression ‘in line of duty,’ as used in the ordinance? It should be given a reasonable meaning and one that will carry out the intention of the Court of Common Council. The expression should be read in the light of the legislative intent as the same is ascertainable from the whole body of the act, and also in the light of the other ordinances upon the subject in force at the time of its enactment. There is evident an intent in this very section to differentiate between time lost by reason of sickness, and time lost through injury. Again, Section 1 of Section 184 of the Revised Ordinances as amended by amendment, approved December 15, 1908, provides as follows.—‘The necessary expenses hereafter incurred by any members of the fire department in being treated for injuries sustained while in the actual performance of duty shall be paid by the City of Hartford out of the general appropriation for the department as hereinafter provided. The board of fire commissioners may recommend the payment of such expenses and upon such recommendation by said board, the Court of Common Council may order the comptroller to draw his order upon the treasurer for the amount so recommended. It seems to me that the intent of Section 3 of Section 56 when thus read means that if the board of fire commissioners shall determine that any fireman has lost time through injuries received while in the actual performance of any duty which it is incumbent on him to perform as a fireman, an allowance for such time lost may be voted by said board to such fireman—the principle governing such cases being the recognition of the extra hazard that comes to the members of the department in the actual discharge of their duties , as distinguished from what might be called ‘construction performance or readiness to perform.’ This, I think, covers your specific inquiry in the Nolan case and also your general inquiry concerning such ordinance.” Following the receipt of the opinion the commissioners held that while a fireman injured in fire duty or in such special duty, as inspecting buildings, would be entitled to full pay if incapacitated by injury incurred while doing such duty, that Fireman Nolan was in the performance of a "constructive" duty at the time of his accident and no further allowance of pay was granted.

在康涅狄格州的哈特福德消防委员会已经收到Corporation Counsel Coogan an opinion settling a question that arose at a board meeting a few weeks ago as to the status of a fireman injured during his meal hour. At the previous meeting some of the board held that in such a case the fireman was not entitled to more than half pay, which is the usual allowance to a member incapacitated by sickness, while others held that as a fireman was expected to answer alarms during meal hours he was “on duty.” The question largely involved the point of difference between “on duty” and “on fire duty.” The matter came up through an application for pay for Fireman William F. Nolan. The board allowed half pay at the time and then asked the corporation counsel for an opinion so as to find out if more than half pay should be granted. The letter of the corporation counsel follows:—"You ask for my advice on the petition of William F. Nolan for pay for time lost, by reason of injuries. It appears that Nolan was injured while on his bicycle returning to engine house No. 5, by being struck by an automobile. Section 3 of Section 56 of the Revised Ordinances, as amended by amendment approved March 15th, 1911, reads as follows:—‘At the discretion of the board of Fire Commissioners allowance may be made for time lost through injury received in line of duty, and also allowance of half pay for time lost by reason of sickness.’ What is meant by the expression ‘in line of duty,’ as used in the ordinance? It should be given a reasonable meaning and one that will carry out the intention of the Court of Common Council. The expression should be read in the light of the legislative intent as the same is ascertainable from the whole body of the act, and also in the light of the other ordinances upon the subject in force at the time of its enactment. There is evident an intent in this very section to differentiate between time lost by reason of sickness, and time lost through injury. Again, Section 1 of Section 184 of the Revised Ordinances as amended by amendment, approved December 15, 1908, provides as follows.—‘The necessary expenses hereafter incurred by any members of the fire department in being treated for injuries sustained while in the actual performance of duty shall be paid by the City of Hartford out of the general appropriation for the department as hereinafter provided. The board of fire commissioners may recommend the payment of such expenses and upon such recommendation by said board, the Court of Common Council may order the comptroller to draw his order upon the treasurer for the amount so recommended. It seems to me that the intent of Section 3 of Section 56 when thus read means that if the board of fire commissioners shall determine that any fireman has lost time through injuries received while in the actual performance of any duty which it is incumbent on him to perform as a fireman, an allowance for such time lost may be voted by said board to such fireman—the principle governing such cases being the recognition of the extra hazard that comes to the members of the department in the actual discharge of their duties , as distinguished from what might be called ‘construction performance or readiness to perform.’ This, I think, covers your specific inquiry in the Nolan case and also your general inquiry concerning such ordinance.” Following the receipt of the opinion the commissioners held that while a fireman injured in fire duty or in such special duty, as inspecting buildings, would be entitled to full pay if incapacitated by injury incurred while doing such duty, that Fireman Nolan was in the performance of a "constructive" duty at the time of his accident and no further allowance of pay was granted.