The reviewing board, adopting the findings and decision of the single member, dismissed the claim for compensation. The self insurer appealed from a decree entered in the Superior Court recommitting the case to the Industrial Accident Board for more detailed findings of fact on the ground "that the finding of the single member of the [b]oard which was adopted by the [r]eview[ing b]oard was nothing more than a general naked finding, consisting of a categorical repetition of the statutory words governing compensability; that the record before this Court does not contain any findings of fact by which this Court can determine with reasonable certainty whether or not correct rules of law have been applied to facts which could properly be found . . . ." The medical testimony was in conflict, but the record is clear that the single member weighed it and concluded that she was "unable to find that claimant has sustained the burden of proving that her claimed disability is related to her employment with the insured . . . ." This amounted to a statement that the single member was not convinced by the evidence that causal connection existed. It is hard to see what additional subsidiary findings usefully could have been made. The findings should have been permitted to stand. Di Clavio's Case, 293 Mass. 259 . Gaszkowicz's Case, 341 Mass. 727 . Hartman's Case, 336 Mass. 508 . However, the decree appealed from was not a final decree and hence the appeal is not properly before this court. McCracken's Case, 251 Mass. 347 , 350. Pereira's Case, 313 Mass. 774 . Batchon's Case, 333 Mass. 605 . Cf. Sciola's Case, 236 Mass. 407 , 415.
In this action of tort the plaintiffs are a minor and his mother. The minor was injured as a result of a fall from a four foot chain link fence enclosing a grass covered area. The mother seeks consequential damages. The jury returned a verdict for each of the plaintiffs. The defendant's exceptions are to the denial of a motion for directed verdicts, to the denial of one of its requests for instructions, and to certain portions of the judge's charge to the jury. There was evidence that the father of the minor plaintiff was a tenant and together with his wife and four children occupied an apartment in the defendant's Old Colony Housing Project in South Boston, Massachusetts; that the children used the area where the child was injured from the beginning of the tenancy. There was also testimony that there was a gate to this area, and toward the end of the day, while the children were within the enclosure,
an employee of the defendant locked the gate and that fifteen minutes later the child climbed "to the top of the fence, . . . [caught] his pants on the top of the fence and then . . . [fell] to the ground outside the fence." This evidence, if believed, would warrant verdicts for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, there was no error in denying the defendant's motion for directed verdicts. See Altman v. Barron's, Inc. 343 Mass. 43 , 46-47. We have reviewed the requested instruction as well as the judge's charge to the jury and are satisfied that there was no error.