Gotkin v. Weinberg

• Decision Date: 26 May 1949
• Citation: 66 A.2d 438,2 N.J. 305
• Docket Number: A-230
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: ESTHER GOTKIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. BERTRAM U. WEINBERG ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

66 A.2d 438

GOTKIN

v.WEINBERG et al.

No. A-230.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 9, 1949.

Decided May 26, 1949.

Appeal from former Supreme Court.

Petition for workmen's compensation by Esther Gotkin, opposed by Bertram U. Weinberg and others, employers.From a judgment of the former Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari granted to review a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau awarding petitioner compensation for permanent disability, employers appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Bertram U. Weinberg, Philadelphia, Pa., pro se, of the Pennsylvania Bar, argued the cause for the respondents-appellants(Joseph A. Fuerstman and Frank A. Boettner, Newark, attorneys).

John A. Laird, Newark, argued the cause for petitioner-respondent(David Roskein, Newark, attorney).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

OLIPHANT, Justice.

Respondents-appellants appeal from a judgment of the former Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari granted to review a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau awarding petitioner compensation for permanent disability sustained in a fall on July 12, 1944.That the accident occurred in the course of and arose out of the employment is not disputed.

Petitioner, a resident of New Jersey, was employed under a written contract, made and executed in New Jersey, to act as a ‘Camp Mother’ at a camp for boys and girls conducted by appellants, as a partnership, in Pennsylvania under the name of Pocono Highland Camps.She was to be compensated by free tuition for her son, the cost of which was $350.00.This was found below to be the wages for her services and not the cost to the camp.

Appellants maintained an office in this state and petitioner attended two pre-seasonal counsellor's meetings in Newark and assisted with the departure of a group of campers from a Newark railroad station on one occasion.Except for these isolated instances petitioner's activities were all to be performed in Pennsylvania and a clause in the contract of employment provided ‘It is agreed that this contract is to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, * * *.’

The principal and sole meritorious contention made by appellants is that as the contract called for services to be performed in Pennsylvania exclusively this state lacked jurisdiction, and further that the contract was a Pennsylvania contract both by implied intention of the parties and by express intention under the contract.

The law is firmly established that when a contract of employment is made in this state it is immaterial whether the compensable accident occurs here or elsewhere.Rounsaville v. Central R.R. Co., 87 N.J.L. 371, 94 A. 392(Sup.Ct.1915), reversed on other grounds, 90 N.J.L. 176, 101 A. 182(E. & A.1917);Hi-Heat Gas Co. v. Dickerson, 170 A. 44, 12 N.J.Misc. 151(Sup.Ct.1934), affd.113 N.J.L. 329, 174 A. 483(E. & A.1934);Steinmetz v. Snead & Co., 123 N.J.L. 138, 8 A.2d 126(Sup.Ct.1939);Miller v. National Chair Co., 127 N.J.L. 414, 22 A.2d 804(Sup.Ct.1941), affd.129 N.J.L. 98, 28 A.2d 125(E. & A.1942);Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Casualty Ins. Co. v. Schmerbeck, 128 N.J.L. 180, 24 A.2d 573(Sup.Ct.1942), affd.131 N.J.L. 159, 35 A.2d 719(E. & A.1944).

Our scheme of compensation, set forth in article 2 of the Act, R.S.34:15-7 et seq., N.J.S.A., enters by operation of law into every...