George T. Newell, Jr., Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau

• Decision Date: 16 March 1932
• Docket Number: No. 253.,253.
• Citation: 159 A. 316
• Parties: GEORGE T. NEWELL, Jr., Inc. v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

159 A. 316

GEORGE T. NEWELL, Jr., Inc.

v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU.

No. 253.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 16, 1932.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Burton Kiple against George T. Newell Jr., Inc., employer. To review a judgment awarding compensation to petitioner, the employer brings certiorari.

Affirmed.

Argued January term, 1932, before TRENCHARD, DALY, and DONGES, JJ.

Henry M. Hartmann, of Trenton, for prosecutor.

Palmer & Powell, of Mt. Holly, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The Workmen's Compensation Bureau made an award in favor of Burton Kiple, for injuries alleged to have been sustained by accident, on December 21, 1928, whilst Kiple was helping to carry a can of ashes from the cellar to the main floor of the employer's place of business and in the course of his work. The testimony was to the effect that while so doing he injured his back and was compelled to cease work.

The doctor who treated the petitioner below testified that there had been a severe or twisting strain, which injured certain vertebræ that he was unable to work. He died on February 10, 1931.

Two doctors for the defendant testified that there was an atrophy of the spine, by the closing of the joints between the vertebrae. They testified that, while the condition was probably of long standing, it would have been aggravated by a severe strain.

A fellow workman of Kiple, one Leone, testified that petitioner was helping him carry a can of ashes up the cellar stairs when something happened to Kiple that caused him to almost drop the can; that Kiple gave immediate evidence of having suffered an injury to his back.

The petitioner's daughter testified that his condition grew progressively worse after the injury.

Under the proofs we think the Compensation Bureau was justified in its determination that Kiple met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Atchison v. Colgate & Co., 128 A. 598, 3 N. J. Misc. R. 451.

Prosecutor contends that the testimony of Peter Leone and Lavinia Kiple was incompetent. Certainly much, if not all, of their testimony was competent. But there was no objection to its admission, and hence there was no error in its admission.

The third point is that the award covered too long a period of time. The proof was that he was fully incapacitated from December 28, 1928, to the date of his death on February 10, 1931, and this was the period covered by the award. We think there is no merit in this...