Hercules Powder Co. v. Nieratko

• Decision Date: 10 January 1935
• Docket Number: No. 106.,106.
• Citation: 176 A. 198
• Parties: HERCULES POWDER CO. v. NIERATKO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

176 A. 198

HERCULES POWDER CO.

v. NIERATKO.

No. 106.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 10, 1935.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Doris Nieratko, administratrix ad pros, of the estate of Martin Nieratko, employee, deceased, opposed by the Hercules Powder Company, employer. From a judgment for claimant (113 N. J. Law, 195, 173 A. 606), the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

R. E. & A. D. Watson, of New Brunswick, and Carl V. Vogt, of Morristown (Harold A. Price, of Morristown, of counsel), for appellant.

David T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy (James F. Patten, of Perth Amboy, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in this case and with the judgment entered therein. We are not, however, to be considered as giving assent to the dictum in the opinion filed in that court to the effect that sections **236—16 and **236—17, Comp. St. Supp. 1924 (Workmen's Compensation Act, §§ 15, 16), requiring notice that the workman has received personal injuries, are directory only and that the notice need not be in writing. The employer in the present case had actual knowledge of an injury and acted thereon by the voluntary payment of compensation, and notice, whether oral or written, was not necessary to the validity of the judgment or to the disposition of the case.

Respecting the notice itself, it may well be that such notice was intended by the Legislature to be in writing. While it is true that section **236—16 requires only that notice shall be given by some of the parties in interest, section **236—17 would seem to indicate its character. This section not only prescribes the manner of its service, but prescribes its form.

The obvious purpose of the notification is that the employer may in the absence of knowledge receive written notice that a claim is presented for an injury received by an employee in the course of employment while engaged in his work in a place and at a time designated in the notice. Being in writing, it becomes a permanent record as between the parties, definite in character; a record that can be preserved for future reference, thus avoiding controversy or dispute between the parties as to the information thus conveyed, and leaving nothing open as a subject of future misunderstanding. It is thus for the protection of both employer and employed.

Nor can we assume that this important requirement is directory merely...