Ciocca v. Nat'l Sugar Ref. Co. of N.J., 55.

Citation124 N.J.L. 329,12 A.2d 130
Decision Date25 January 1940
Docket NumberNo. 55.,55.
PartiesCIOCCA v. NATIONAL SUGAR REFINING CO. OF NEW JERSEY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq., by Carmella Ciocca, claimant, against the National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, employer. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 122 N.J.L. 165, 4 A.2d 397, affirming a judgment of the court of common pleas reversing an award of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau in favor of the claimant, the claimant appeals.

Judgment of the Supreme Court reversed, and judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau affirmed.

Nathan & Isadore Rabinowitz, of Paterson, for appellant.

John J. Breslin, Jr., of Hackensack, and McCarter & English, of Newark (Ward J. Herbert, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case. The widow of the deceased employee appeals from the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of the Pleas, which in turn reversed the judgment of the Bureau in her favor.

The question we are called upon to decide is whether the Supreme Court, in adopting the factual and legal conclusions of the Pleas, invoked and applied the applicable rule of law when, as here, it held that the death of the employee—appellant's husband—conceded to be from heat prostration suffered while at his work, was not the result of an accident arising out of his employment.

The proofs in the Bureau in support of the widow's claim that her deceased husband suffered a compensable accident, because his death arose out of his employment, disclose, substantially, the following:

Respondent, as its name indicates, is engaged in the sugar refining business. Part of its plant consists of a dock built over the Hudson River, at Edgewater, N. J. The size of the dock, variously estimated, may safely be said to be at least 400 feet long, 100 feet wide and 60 feet high. It is of "wood construction, wooden trusses, wooden roof and wooden rafters * * *." One side is covered with "corrugated metal" and the other side with "transite boards, a fire proof insulated material." The roof consists of "tar and paper covered with slag or pebbles." The dock has many doors and windows. It, however, requires the use of many large electric lamps to supply light during the day time.

To this dock came vessels, as did one on July 10, 1937, loaded with raw sugar in bags weighing between 300 and 340 pounds. As these bags of sugar are transported from the vessel to the dock a certain quantity of the sugar drops out of the bags and accumulates both on the platform of the trucks used and on the floor of the dock.

The work of Salvatore Ciocca (appellant's husband) consisted chiefly of sweeping up the sugar accumulated, as aforesaid, so that it could be salvaged, as it was, by placing it in buckets provided for that purpose; he also spliced rope slings used in hoisting the bags, he shoveled sugar and did other work from time to time as the occasion demanded. His working hours were from eight o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the afternoon. He was a healthy and steady man; he worked regularly for respondent for about 15 years.

July 10, 1937, was an abnormally hot day. There was a maximum temperature of 95°F. and a minimum of 91°F. and a mean temperature of 88° F. This was an increase of 15° above normal. Ciocca commenced his work as usual at eight o'clock in the morning. He swept the accumulations of the sugar from the trucks. These trucks were from 1 1/2 feet to 4 feet from the platform of the dock. Since he was only "a medium sized man" he had to lean over with his broom to reach the platform of the trucks. So he worked steadily with the exception of an hour for lunch, until 4 o'clock when he was taken sick; he appeared to be "tired." It is conceded that he was overcome by "heat prostration" and was immediately taken to the Englewood Hospital where, as it is further conceded, he died from "heat prostration" about 6 :30 p. m. of the same day. He was 63 years old.

The medical expert for appellant, none was produced for respondent, testified, among other things, that heat prostration or exhaustion may result from being exposed to the heat regardless of the cause of the heat; that one stricken with heat prostration does not necessarily first have to be exposed to the heat rays of the sun; that one working under a temperature prevailing at the time Ciocca worked may suffer heat prostration; and that in his opinion "* * * the work that he (Ciocca) performed on that day (the day in question) was the competent and producing cause of heat prostration from which he was suffering and died."

On the other hand, the proofs in support of respondent's claim that Ciocca's death was not compensable because it was not the result of an accident arising out of his employment tended to show that the work he was doing was relatively light and easy; that it did not induce out of the ordinary strain or exertion on his part; that the place where he worked was in fact a few degrees cooler (exact temperature on dock was not shown) than it was outside the dock; that his employment did not subject him to a greater exposure than that to which persons generally in that locality were exposed; and that, therefore, his prostration and ensuing death did not arise nut of his employment.

In this posture of the proofs the Bureau concluded that the construction of the building, the dust and particles filling the area, as a result of the sweeping, the abnormal temperature, all subjected deceased employee to a greater exposure than that to which persons generally in that locality were exposed. And in light of decedent's previous good health, his prostration just before the end of his day's work and his ensuing death, fully justified the assumption that "he would not have died at the time he did but for all the conditions surrounding his employment." The Bureau, therefore, held that "decedent's death was due to an accident in the sense that it was unexpected, and it was not such a result as would naturally follow the employment, but grew out of it and decedent died because of it." Accordingly, the widow was awarded compensation.

From the judgment based upon the award in the Bureau, respondent appealed to the Bergen County Court of Common Pleas.

Notwithstanding the concessions that deceased employee was overcome from heat prostration while at his work and died as the result thereof, and all other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 7 Julio 1941
    ...(workman butchering animals contracted disease from contact with diseased meat); Hentz v. Janssen, etc., supra; Ciocca v. National Sugar Refin. Co., 124 N.J.L. 329, 12 A.2d 130; see annotations in 6 A.L.R. 1466; 23 A. L.R. 335; 90 A.L.R. 619, entitled “Injury from Fumes or Gas as Accident o......
  • Neylon v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 11 Febrero 1952
    ...it became a lever upon which broad statements were rested by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Ciocca v. National Sugar Refining Co., 124 N.J.L. 329, 334, 12 A.2d 130 (1939), and upon which turned the decision by the Supreme Court in Molnar v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 127 N.J.L. 1......
  • Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 7 Julio 1941
    ...animals contracted disease from contact with diseased meat); Hentz v. Janssen, etc., supra; Ciocca v. National Sugar Refin. Co., 124 N.J.L. 329, 12 A.2d 130; see annotations in 6 A.L.R. 1466; 23 A. L.R. 335; 90 A.L.R. 619, entitled "Injury from Fumes or Gas as Accident or Occupational Disea......
  • Everson v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Ewing Tp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 15 Octubre 1945
    ...... to support a fact conclusion arrived at below, Ciocca v. National Sugar Refining Co., 124 N.J.L. 329, 335, 12 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT