Dooley v. Smith's Transfer Co., C. P. No. A-26846.
Citation | 57 A.2d 554 |
Decision Date | 11 February 1948 |
Docket Number | C. P. No. A-26846. |
Parties | DOOLEY v. SMITH'S TRANSFER CO. |
Court | New Jersey Department of Labor-Workmen's Compensation Bureau |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the claim of John J. Dooley, employee, opposed by Smith's Transfer Co., employer.
Judgment of dismissal in accordance with opinion.
A. S. Arnold, of Metuchen, for petitioner.
Henry M. Grosman, of Newark, for respondent.
MEDINETS, Deputy Commissioner.
By stipulation of counsel for the respective parties hereto, it was stipulated, with the approval of this Court, that the issue for determination is the question of whether or not the petitioner, who admittedly was injured on March 29, 1946, received said injury as a result of an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment with the respondent. The determination of this point, was to be first settled, and if resolved in favor of the petitioner, then testimony was to be taken for the purpose of determining the elements of temporary and permanent disability.
It appears that there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent, engaged as a manager, and that incidental to his work and as a necessary part thereof, he was required to make use of his own automobile. The place of business of the respondent was located in Newark, New Jersey. The petitioner's home was located in Metuchen, New Jersey, at which place the petitioner, by custom and approval of the respondent, kept his car when not in use for the Company's business. The petitioner was paid a weekly allowance by the respondent for the use of his automobile in connection with his business.
In the original petition filed by the petitioner, he alleges under oath, in allegation No. 15 of the formal petition ‘that he was attending a meeting to settle employer's labor difficulties.’ Actually, the testimony indicates that the petitioner, who was a business solicitor for the respondent, had concluded his day's work at 4:30 p. m., and then proceeded, by appointment with a fellow workman, to meet at a tavern on a corner near the respondent's business where both admittedly were drinking until 6:00 p. m. Petitioner then returned to respondent's place of business nearby where he had his car parked. Petitioner left his car at respondent's place of business parked on the street and admittedly went uptown in Newark and attended a movie. He returned after 9 o'clock and tells a story of having trouble with his car and changing a wheel and arriving at a gas station in Newark at 12:00 p. m., to get the tire repaired. Subsequently, he was involved in an accident in Rahway, New Jersey, at 2:20 a. m., when his car crashed into a road stanchion.
Henry Specht, the Union shop-steward, for the respondent who was indicated by the petitioner as his companion when they stopped in the tavern stated that the petitioner had nothing to do with respondent's labor activities and that they just went down to have a few drinks. He stated that when they returned to respondent's place of business after leaving the tavern, he together with Dooley, the petitioner, proceeded to make the rounds of various taverns, and that ultimately Dooley left him off at ‘his, ‘Specht's' home in Newark.’ Specht says he does not remember who was driving Dooley's car or what Dooley's condition was, but that he knows for himself that he personally had had enough to drink so that he did not know what he was doing.
It was admitted that the respondent as part of petitioner's employment made him an allowance for the use of his car, in connection with the business of the respondent which required that the petitioner use an automobile, and the case simmers down in the final analysis to one where the petitioner now claims that his accident arose out of his employment with the respondent by reason of the fact that in being allowed for the use of his automobile in the respondent's business, he was on the respondent's employment going to his home from the respondent's place of business which admittedly he had left at 4:30 p. m., the previous day. The accident in question occurred on March 29, 1946 at 2:20 a. m., in Rahway, New...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Harrington v. Harrington.
-
Bush v. Parmenter, Forsythe, Rude & Dethmers
...been held to have lost its business character somewhere along the line. The case of Mr. Dooley is typical. [ Dooley v. Smith's Transfer Co., 26 N.J.Misc. 129, 57 A.2d 554 (NJ Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 1948) ] Having the right to travel to and from work at company expense in his own car......
-
Carter v. Burn Const. Co., Inc.
...Company, 256 So.2d 741 (La.App.1972); Alford v. Quality Chevrolet Co., 246 N.C. 214, 97 S.E.2d 869 (1957); Dooley v. Smith's Transfer Co., 57 A.2d 554, 26 N.J.Misc. 129 (1948). This record demonstrates a major deviation and compels the conclusion that the deceased had abandoned his employme......
-
Hebrank v. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall & MacDonald
...138 A. 922; Shefts v. Free, 105 N.J.L. 577, 146 A. 185.' (at p. 309, 32 A.2d at p. 571) Somewhat analogous is Dooley v. Smith's Transfer Co., 26 N.J.Misc. 129, 57 A.2d 554 (Dept.Labor 1948), where petitioner, who resided in Metuchen, was employed in Newark as a salesman for respondent. He w......