Bertsch v. Jones
| Decision Date | 11 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 212.,212. |
| Parties | BERTSCH v. JONES. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A practical nurse employed to wait on an aged woman, cook her food and do her laundry is an employee and entitled to compensation for injury from accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by E. Elberta Bertsch, compensation claimant, against Esther Jones, alleged employer. From an award of compensation in the bureau, Esther Jones appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. To review a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas reversing the award of compensation, E. Elberta Bertsch brings certiorari.
Judgment reversed.
January term, 1942, before BODINE, PERSKIE, and PORTER, JJ.
Edwin Jos. O'Brien and Thomas J. Brett, both of Newark, for prosecutrix.
Kalisch & Kalisch and Isidor Kalisch, all of Newark, for respondent.
There was an award of compensation in the bureau and a reversal in the court of Common Pleas. The question turns on whether the prosecutrix, a practical nurse, was a regular employee or an independent contractor. She was employed by the defendant for $35 a week to take care of her companion, an aged woman whose mind and body were diseased, and in the course of that employment she suffered an injury by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of that employment. She worked from the middle of October, 1939, till December 13, 1939, when pain from her injury made work impossible for a time.
N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 provides: "'Employee' is synonymous with servant, and includes all natural persons who perform service for another for financial consideration."
The defendant had instructed the prosecutrix as to changing the rooms allotted to the companion and had pointed out the linens to be used and the food to be cooked. Besides, she was instructed as to what laundry work she was to do and what was to be placed in the family wash. When the patient was sent to a sanitorium she was sent with her. She was employed to keep the defendant's companion clean and nourished under the defendant's supervision as much as if she had been employed to cook, to wait on the table, or if she had been a man to tend the garden or drive the family car. Prosecutrix was an employee. Cantwell v. Delaney, 160 A. 679, 10 N.J.Misc. 783; Id., 110 N.J.L. 554, 166 A. 198; Jasnig v. Winter, 115 N.J.L. 320, 179 A. 844; Id., 116 N.J.L. 181, 182 A. 842; Rojeski v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Levy
...period and in fact the petitioner seems to have been as much an employee of the respondent as any other of his servants. Bertsch v. Jones, 128 N.J.L. 34, 24 A.2d 379. Respondent further contends that the accident herein complained of did not arise out of the employment inasmuch as the accid......
-
David v. Employers Mut. Ins. Co. of Wausau
...servant,' 60 A.L.R. 303 (1929). See also Chmizlak v. Levine, 20 N.J.Misc. 339, 27 A.2d 629 (Dept.Labor 1942). Cf. Bertsch v. Jones, 128 N.J.L. 34, 24 A.2d 379 (Sup.Ct.1942), aff'd 129 N.J.L. 51, 28 A.2d 118 (E. & A.1942), and Robinson v. Levy, 20 N.J.Misc. 444, 28 A.2d 651 (Dept. Labor 1942......
-
Plant-Erickson v. Ditter, 129/714.
... 24 A.2d 379131 N.J.Eq. 163 PLANT-ERICKSON v. DITTER et al. 129/714. Court of Chancery of New Jersey. Feb. 13, 1942. 24 A.2d 380 Syllabus by the Court. Parties to a joint adventure have a right to demand and expect from their associates good faith in all that relates to their common interes......
- Bertsch v. Jones