Hulley v. Moosbrugger
Decision Date | 15 November 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 60.,60. |
Citation | 95 A. 1007 |
Parties | HULLEY v. MOOSBRUGGER. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Annie E. Hulley to obtain compensation for death of an employé, opposed by Herman F. Moosbrugger, the employer. Compensation was awarded, the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on certiorari (93 Atl. 79), and the employer appeals. Reversed.
McCarter & English, of Newark, for appellant. Clarence E. Case, of Somerville, for appellee.
WALKER, Ch. The question argued, and therefore the only one to be decided upon this appeal, is as to whether or not an employer is liable, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (P. L. 1911, p. 134), to make compensation for injury to an employé which was the result of horseplay or skylarking, so called. The injury in this case resulted in death. The facts are succinctly stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Kalisch in the Supreme Court (93 Atl. p. 79) as follows:
It seems to be immaterial whether Hulley instigated the larking, or took part in it, and it may be assumed that he did neither, which appears to be the fact.
To warrant recovery for the death of an employé under section 2 of the act mentioned, it must not only appear that it was the result of an accident which occurred "in the course of his employment," but also that it arose "out of the employment." Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. Law, 72, 86 Atl. 458.
The judge of the Somerset common pleas held that the petitioner was entitled to recover for the death of her intestate for injuries sustained by reason of the accident, which, he says, arose out of and in the course of the decedent's employment. Although the findings of the court of common pleas as to the facts of the case are conclusive, according to section 18 of the act, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sexton v. Newark Dist. Tel. Co., 84 N. J. Law, 85, 86 Atl. 451 ( ), and therefore are conclusive here, yet, nevertheless, the law arising upon ascertained facts is a question for the court reviewing the decision (Bryant v. Fissell, supra).
The Supreme Court in its opinion properly held that the principle to be deduced from the adjudications in this state is that, where an accident is the result of a risk reasonably incident to the employment, it is an accident arising out of the employment; but the facts of the case at bar do not bring it within the doctrine. In none of the cases cited by the Supreme Court did the injury result from horseplay or skylarking—not even in the Massachusetts case In re Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., 102 N. E. 697; s. c, sub nom. McNichol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, wherein it was held:
And Rugg, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, observed, at page 498 of 215-Mass., 102 N. E. 697:
In McNichol's Case the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts cited the English cases in which it had been held that certain extraneous injuries arose in the course and out of employment, and also those in which the contrary had been held, citing Armitage v. L. & Y. Ry. Co. and Craske v. Wigan, infra, effect, that the conclusions reached in those cases accorded with their facts. We regard the McNichol Case as an authority for the result reached in the case at bar.
We have no case in this state in which the right to recover under the Workmen's Compensation Act has arisen out of an accident which was the result of horseplay or skylarking, so called; but the right to recover in such circumstances has been denied in several well-considered English cases, and the Supreme Court said in Bryant v. Fissell, supra, that, as the language of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crilly v. Ballou
... ... Notwithstanding the sweep of these judicial definitions, the court in Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N.J.L. 161, 169, 95A. 1007, L.R.A.1916C, 1203 (E. & A. 1915), denied a compensation award to a non-participating victim of ... ...
-
Henderson v. Celanese Corp.
... ... Bryant[104 A.2d 722] v. Fissell, 84 N.J.L. 72, 86 A. 458 (Sup.Ct. 1913); Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N.J.L. 161, 95 A. 1007, L.R.A.1916C, 1203 (E. & A. 1915); Colucci v. Edison Portland Cement Co., 94 N.J.L. 542, 111 A. 4, 10, ... ...
-
Osment v. Pitcairn
... ... R. A. 1918A, 115; Reeve v. Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co., 82 Wash. 268, 144 P. 63, L. R. A. 1915C, 37; ... Annotation, 72 L.Ed. 157, 162, 164; Hulley v ... Moosbrugger, 95 A. 1007, L. R. A. 1916C, 1203; ... Madison v. Phillips Pet. Co., 88 F.2d 515; Mo ... Pac. Ry. v. David, 284 U.S. 460, 76 ... ...
-
Hill v. Liberty Motor & Eng'g Corp..
...held that, althouth the injury arose ‘in the course of the employment,’ it did not arise ‘out of an employment.’ In Hulley v. Moosbrugger, 88 N.J.Law, 161, 95 A. 1007, L.R.A.1916C, 1203, compensation was denied where the deceased, while working, in dodging a friendly blow of a fellow workma......