Dixon v. Andrews
| Citation | 103 A. 410,91 N.J.Law 373 |
| Parties | DIXON v. ANDREWS. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
(Syllabus bp the Court.)
From the circumstantial details in evidence, the judge of the pleas determined that the decedent's death was caused by an accident and that such accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Burlington County.
Action by Margaret H. Dixon against Clayton L. Andrews for compensation for the death of a deceased employe. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1917, before GARRISON, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.
Kaighn & Wolverton, of Camden, for prosecutor.
Samuel K. Robbins, of Camden, for defendant.
The court was justified in finding that the injury of which the decedent died was not intentionally self-inflicted or the result of his intoxication. This left two hypotheses upon which to account for the manner in which such injury was caused, viz., that the decedent was asleep when the mules went under the low roof, or that he was negligent if he was awake. The latter hypothesis need not be considered, inasmuch as negligence is no bar to the recovery of compensation.
The main contention is that the injury was not accidental if the decedent was asleep; the argument being that sleep is not an accident. The act of going to sleep may or may not be an accident, depending upon whether or not it was designed; but the failure to wake up in time to avert a catastrophe is an accident in every sense of the word. If the going to sleep was not designed, it was accidental; if it was designed, it was negligence. In any event, the undesigned failure of the deceased to wake up until he was crushed between the seat and the low roof was purely "accidental" in the sense in which that term is constantly and correctly employed. Palling out of bed asleep is an accident even if the sole design in going to bed was to go to sleep. The sole case in which falling asleep is clearly not within an employment is that of a watchman or similar service where the servant is employed expressly to stay awake. In such case the failure of the servant to do the one thing he was specially employed to do is in effect an abandonment of his employment. Such seems to have been the recent case of Gifford v. Patterson, 222 N. Y. 4, 117 N. E. 946.
The judgment of the Burlington county common pleas is affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Culberson v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co.
...257, 204 N.Y.S. 423, affirmed 239 N.Y. 530, 147 N.E. 182; Richards v. Indianapolis Abattori Co., 92 Conn. 274, 102 A. 604; Dixon v. Andrews, 91 N.J.L. 373, 103 A. 410, affirmed 92 N.J.L. 512, 105 A. 893. In some jurisdictions it has been held that an employee seeking personal comfort or per......
-
Kamrowski v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
...direct evidence. Peoria R. Terminal Co. v. Ind. Board, 116 N.E. 651; Ohio Bldg. Safety Vault Co. v. Industrial Bd. 115 N.W. 149; Dixon v. Andrews, 103 A. 410. opinion evidence is not always essential to making sound findings of fact regarding course of employee's incapacity. Craivley's Case......
-
Belyus v. Wilkinson, Gaddis & Co.
...injury or death is intentionally self-inflicted, or when intoxication is the natural and proximate cause of injury." See Dixon v. Andrews, 91 N. J. Law, 373, 103 A. 410, affirmed 92 N. J. Law, 512, 105 A. 893; Taylor v. Seabrook, 87 N. J. Law, 407, 94 A. The legislative design indisputably ......
-
In re Death of Coleman, 6012
...for compensation, where at the time he was engaged in the work he was employed to do, or in work incidental to the employment. (Dixon v. Andrews, supra; American Ice v. Fitzhugh, 128 Md. 382, 97 A. 999, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 33; Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116, 96 A. 368.) GIVENS,......