Balogh v. Ladanye
Citation | 59 N.J.Super. 132,157 A.2d 350 |
Decision Date | 18 January 1960 |
Docket Number | No. A--46,A--46 |
Parties | Mary BALOGH, individually and Mary Balogh, as Guardian ad litem of Gustav Balogh, an infant, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas LADANYE, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
William K. Miller, Newark, for defendant-respondent.
Oliver R. Kovacs, Perth Amboy, for plaintiffs-appellants (Clausen, Klein, Kovacs & Anderson, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
Before Judges GAULKIN, SULLIVAN and FOLEY.
The parties agree that Gustav Balogh was an infant under the age of 18 years on August 5, 1958; that he was injured on that day while operating a power-driven band saw as an employee of defendant Thomas Ladanye; that the employment was prohibited under N.J.S.A. 34:2--21.17.
A petition was filed on behalf of the infant in the Workmen's Compensation Division demanding workmen's compensation benefits and, as appellants say in their brief, 'After hearing in the Division,
The infant and his mother, individually and as guardian Ad litem, instituted the above entitled common law action for negligently causing the infant's injuries. The Superior Court, Law Division, entered summary judgment in favor of defendant upon the authority of Damato v. DeLucia, 110 N.J.L. 380, 166 A. 173 (E. & A. 1933).
Appellants contend that Damato was incorrectly decided and, in any event, it is no longer the law because of the various amendments of the Workmen's Compensation Act which have been adopted since L.1924, c. 159, which was the statute construed in the Damato case.
We find no merit in these contentions. We consider Damato v. DeLucia to be sound, and as pertinent and controlling today as it was when it was decided. See also Watson v. Stagg, 108 N.J.L. 444, 158 A. 820 (Sup.Ct.1932); Houlihan v. Raymond, 49 N.J.Super. 85, 139 A.2d 37 (Law Div.1958); 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 47.52. Cf. Goetaski v. California Packing Corp., 19 N.J.Super. 460, 88 A.2d 685 (Law Div.1952). Under the circumstances the mother may not sue Per quod. Danek v. Hommer, 9 N.J. 56, 87 A.2d 5 (1952).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc.
... ... 496, 277 N.W.2d 340 (1979); Danek v. Meldrum Mfg. & Engineering Co., Inc., 312 Minn. 404, 252 N.W.2d 255 (1977); Balogh v. Ladanye, 59 N.J.Super. 132, 157 A.2d 350 (1960), but see Thompson v. Family Godfather, Inc., 212 N.J.Super. 270, 514 A.2d 875 (Law Div.1986) (new ... ...
-
Chickachop v. Manpower, Inc.
... ... A recovery in one proceeding is a satisfaction of remedy. Damato v. DeLucia, 110 N.J.L. 380, 166 A. 173 (E. & A. 1933); Balogh v. Ladanye, 59 N.J.Super. 132, 157 A.2d 350 (App.Div.1960); 28 C.J.S. Election of Remedies, § 2 p. 1061 (1941) ... It is the law of ... ...
-
Pappano v. Shop Rite of Pennington, Inc.
... ... We reached the same conclusion in Balogh v. Ladanye, 59 N.J.Super. 132, 157 A.2d 350 (App.Div.1960). See also Seltzer v. Isaacson, 147 N.J.Super. 308, 371 A.2d 304 (App.Div.1977). In ... ...
-
Seltzer v. Isaacson
... ... Any common law action she may have had was thus barred. See Damato v. DeLucia, ... 110 N.J.L. 380, 166 A. 173 (E. & A.1933); Balogh v. Ladanye, 59 N.J.Super. 132, 157 A.2d 350 (App.Div.1960); Watson v. Stagg, 108 N.J.L. 444, 158 A. 820 (Sup.Ct.1932); Chickachop v. Manpower, Inc., ... ...