Brooks v. Essex Warehouse Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1948
• Citation: Brooks v. Essex Warehouse Co., 59 A.2d 2, 137 N.J.L. 299 (N.J. 1948)
• Docket Number: 13
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: SOPHIE BROOKS, RESPONDENT, v. ESSEX WAREHOUSE CO., APPELLANT

59 A.2d 2

BROOKS v. ESSEX WAREHOUSE CO.

No. 13.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 13, 1948.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Sophie Brooks, claimant, to recover compensation for death of her husband, opposed by Essex Warehouse Company, employer. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court reversing award of the Compensation Bureau in favor of claimant was reversed by the Supreme Court, 136 N.J.L. 297, 55 A.2d 665, and the employer appeals.

Judgment of Supreme Court affirmed.

Alexander Avidan, Avidan & Avidan and Sara M. Lewitt, all of Newark, for respondent.

Isidor Kalisch and Kalisch & Kalisch, all of Newark, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bodine, 136 N.J.L. 297, 55 A.2d 665, in the Supreme Court, supplemented by further recital of proofs as follows:

The employer concedes that the workman could have fallen into the elevator shaft through the basement opening but upon the theory that the day's work was done and that there was no reason for the workman to descend from the main floor to the basement floor argues that injury or death so suffered would not be compensable. We think the assumption that the decedent had ended his day's work and that there was no occasion for him to descend to the basement at or before his fatal accident is not sustained. It is true that one Mullin testified that as the witness was on his way out of the building at around eight o'clock at night he met Brooks on the main floor heading toward the room where the men changed to street clothes; and that when Mullin was asked on the witness stand whether, so far as he knew, Brooks' work was through for the day, he answered that it was. However, it does not appear that Mullin had worked with Brooks on that day or that he had knowledge of the mission upon which Brooks was then engaged or that his statement was more than a belief or guess. Brooks, when found dead the next morning, had not changed to his street clothes; obviously, therefore, he had not done the errand upon which Mullin intimated he was bound. Mullin, although produced as a witness by the respondent, was nevertheless indirectly discredited by the respondent as one of a group of ‘floaters' or ‘Bowery bums' employed from time to time as laborers, by the day. The purpose was to inject the suggestion, which was without substantial support, that Brooks had been attacked by one or more of the group with the object of robbery and thrown into theshaft. It is difficult to think of a witness as one of a group of potential murderers for money...