George v. Edward M. Waldron, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 184.,184.
• Citation: 166 A. 102
• Parties: GEORGE v. EDWARD M. WALDRON, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

166 A. 102

GEORGE

v. EDWARD M. WALDRON, Inc.

No. 184.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 15, 1933.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Teria George, claimant, for the death of James George. Opposed by Edward M. Waldron, Incorporated, employer. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau denied compensation, and on appeal the Supreme Court reversed judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:

"A determination of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau holding that James George died from sunstroke, a natural cause, and that his death was not the result of any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, is before us.

"George was engaged in wheeling a wheelbarrow containing concrete at the Salvation Army Building, Pennington street, Newark. The day was unusually hot and close. The deceased had been working all day. He was stricken while he was doing overtime work. He pushed a heavy barrow and had been hurrying along all day to complete the laying of a concrete floor, a job that must be finished and in which there is no stopping point.

"Cases of this sort are always close. The problem is solved by a determination of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. It seems to us that the nature of his work peculiarly exposed the deceased to sunstroke. He was giving longer hours to the work than usual because the laying of the concrete must be completed. Other employees engaged in similar work had left. He remained trundling a heavy wheelbarrow, and he was, for exceptional hours, exposed to the heat of an exceptional summer day. Under such circumstances, the risk of sunstroke was naturally connected with and reasonably incident to the work he was doing. He was exposed to a far different risk than the public generally. Schneider's Workmen's Compensation Law, § 333.

"The judgment will be reversed."

McDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City (Carl S. Kuebler, of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellant.

David Roskein, of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, and HEHER, and Judges VAN BUSKIRK. KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR. WELLS, and DILL—13.

For...