Haytko v. William Crabb & Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1951 |
| Citation | 85 A.2d 229,17 N.J.Super. 95 |
| Parties | HAYTKO v. WILLIAM CRABB & CO. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Harry Cohn, Newark, attorney for the petitioner-appellant.
Robert A. Vanderbilt, Newark, attorney for the respondent-appellee.
FRANCIS, J.C.C.
Haytko's petition for an award of workmen's compensation was dismissed on the ground that he was a casual employee within the contemplation of R.S. 34:15--36, N.J.S.A. He now appeals.
The evidence is not substantially in dispute. It shows that respondent was engaged in the manufacture and sale of pins. In the latter part of May, 1951, it was engaged in moving all or part of its plant and manufacturing facilities form Newark to North Carolina. On May 29, 1951 petitioner was employed to assist in the moving, to move, crate and load on trucks office equipment, desks, filing cabinets and other equipment. The employment was for a short, temporary, but indefinite period and Haytko understood that he was to be paid at the rate of $1.50 an hour, which was the standard rate of pay for that type work.
After working for about two hours he sustained an accident which resulted in injury and hospitalization. While at the hospital he received four or five weeks compensation for temporary disability at $25 per week, and a check for $12 representing payment for services rendered on the day of the mishap.
Evidence was offered to the effect that some time prior to Haytko's hiring one Bennett, respondent's superintendent told a William Dunkinson, sales manager of the Lincoln Storage Warehouse, about the impending plant and equipment removal and asked him to assist in the location of a couple of men who were experienced in packing and crating of equipment and who could be hired by respondent for that purpose. Although Dunkinson's company was not handling the moving project, at his request he did locate petitioner and another person and brought them to Bennett who hired them.
No witnesses were produced by respondent and on its motion the petition was dismissed for the reason already set forth.
Casual employment is defined specifically in the Workmen's Compensation Act (R.S. 34:15--36, N.J.S.A.) as follows: "Employee' is synonymous with servant, and includes all natural persons who perform service for another for financial consideration, exclusive of casual employments, which shall be defined, if in connection with the employer's business, as employment the occasion for which arises by chance or is purely accidental; or if not in connection with any business of the employer, as employment not regular, periodic or recurring'.
Consequently where the issue is whether or not an employment is casual, two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Green, A--28
...is clearly upon appellant. Malloy v. Capitol Bakery, 38 N.J.Super. 516, 520, 119 A.2d 487 (Cty.Ct.1955); Haytko v. William Crabb & Co., 17 N.J.Super. 95, 97, 85 A.2d 229 (Cty.Ct.1951); affirmed on opinion 21 N.J.Super. 330, 91 A.2d 231 (App.Div.1952); Burdick v. Liberty Motor Freight Lines,......
-
Graham v. Green
...8 A.2d 60 (Dept.Lab.1939); Thompson v. G. Correale & Sons, Inc., 130 N.J.L. 431, 33 A.2d 578 (Sup.Ct.1943); Haytko v. William Crabb & Co., 17 N.J.Super. 95, 85 A.2d 229 (Cty.Ct.1951), affirmed on opinion below, 21 N.J.Super. 330, 91 A.2d 231 ; Malloy v. Capitol Bakery, 38 N.J.Super. 516, 11......
-
Balmforth v. McMurray
...employer; it is not 'the burden of the employee to present evidence that would disprove casual employment.' Haytko v. William Crabb & Co., 17 N.J.Super. 95, 85 A.2d 229 (Cty.Ct.1951), affirmed 21 N.J.Super. 330, 91 A.2d 231 (App.Div. A casual employee is expressly excluded by the act, R.S. ......
-
Malloy v. Capitol Bakery
...N.J.L. 229, 25 A.2d 14 (Sup.Ct.1942); Stein v. Felden, 17 N.J.Super. 311, 314, 86 A.2d 19 (App.Div.1952); Haytko v. William Crabb & Co., 17 N.J.Super. 95, 97, 85 A.2d 229 (Cty.Ct.1951), affirmed Per curiam 21 N.J.Super. 330, 91 A.2d 231 In my opinion the occasion of the employment did not a......