Laverty v. Ludington Mgmt., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82, 83.,s. 82, 83. |
| Citation | 166 A. 137 |
| Parties | LAVERTY v. LUDINGTON MANAGEMENT, Inc., et al. (two cases). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where employer instructed employees to report for work at his place of business, transported them in his truck to the job, which was some miles distant from his place of business, and brought them back from the job to his yard after the end of the day's work, held, injuries sustained in an accident, while being so transported, arose out of and in the course of the employment.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Separate proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Bridget E. Laverty, and by James H. Laverty, Jr., against the Ludington Management, Inc., and another. From judgments affirming, on certiorari, the conclusions of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau in favor of the petitioners and dismissing the certiorari, the defendants appeal.
Judgments affirmed.
Katzenbach, Gildea & Rudner, of Trenton, for appellants.
Richard J. Mackey, of New York City, for respondents.
These appeals are from judgments of the Supreme Court affirming, on certiorari, the conclusions of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau in favor of the petitioners-respondents, Bridget E. Laverty and James H. Laverty, Jr., and against appellant W. D. French Company, and dismissing the certioraris.
James H. Laverty, Sr., and James H. Laverty, Jr., father and son, resided at or near Moorestown, and were employed by W. D. French Company, through its agent, Gray, as laborers in the construction of Tron Rock golf course, in Camden county. They worked, on September 16, 1931, from 7 a. m. to 5:30 p. m., and then, in accordance with their practice, they, with a number of other employees, boarded a truck of the employer to be conveyed from the golf course to Moorestown, where they lived. On the way to Moorestown, the truck was struck by a railroad train, and James H. Laverty, Sr., was killed, and James H. Laverty, Jr., was injured. Laverty, Sr., left Bridget, the petitioner, his widow, and four dependent children.
The record discloses that it is admitted that Laverty, Sr., and, Laverty, Jr., were employed by appellant; that they were accustomed to go to and from their work in appellant's truck; that they were in one of such trucks, on the way from their work to their homes, at Moorestown, at the time of the collision; and that the injuries resulting in the death of Laverty, Sr., and the injuries to Laverty, Jr., were occasioned by such collision. The only questions raised are whether or not the injuries were received in the course of and arising out of the employment.
The proofs warrant a finding that Laverty, Jr., was employed on the job in question for about three months, during all of which time he was accustomed to go back and forth from his home to work and from work to his home in appellant's truck; that, if he did not do so every work day, he did so almost every day; that when he was engaged he was told to "come to the job in the morning and get on the truck and go down to the golf course"; that he was instructed to come home the same way, by direction of the foreman, Gray; that Mr. French, the head of the company, was present each morning that the truck left, and was frequently present when the truck returned with the workmen on it; that Mr. French "told us that would be a way to go up and down." Laverty further testified: "When he hired me, he said, 'Be in the yard in the morning and get on the truck and go down with the rest of the men'"; that he was in the yard the first morning that his father appeared for work, and that he heard Mr. French tell his father "to get on the truck"; that Laverty, Sr., worked about three weeks on the job; that it was a daily practice for a large number of workmen to be transported by appellant's truck with Laverty; that at the time of the accident...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Micieli v. Erie R. Co.
...(cf. Fisher v. Tidewater Bldg. Co., 96 N.J.L. 103, 104, 114 A. 150, affirmed 97 N.J.L. 324, 116 A. 924, Laverty v. Ludington Management, Inc., 110 N.J.L. 410, 413, 166 A. 137), nevertheless, we have set down well defined principles. The general rule of law is that injuries sustained by a wo......
-
Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co.
...107 N.J.Law, 7, 9, 150 A. 830, 831), and that rule is not without exception with us. Thus in the case of Laverty v. Ludington Management, Inc., 110 N.J.Law, 410, 413, 414, 166 A. 137, we adopted, with approval, one of the exceptions to the general rule so admirably expressed in the Supreme ......
-
Gullo v. Am. Lead Pencil Co., 270.
...Corporation v. Santomassimo, 107 N.J. Law, 7, 150 A. 830, 831. See, also, Laverty v. Ludington Management, Inc., 110 N.J. Law, 410, 166 A. 137. "As an exception to the general rule that injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from work are not ordinarily compensable, injuries wh......
-
Micieli v. Erie R. Co.
...etc., 117 N.J.L 574, 578, 189 A. 662; Id., 118 N.J.L. 530, 532, 193 A. 797, affirmed 120 N.J.L. 182, 198 A. 843; Laverty v. Ludington, etc., 110 N.J.L. 410, 166 A. 137, and cases cited therein); the fact that the employee was using a pass supplied by his employer for travel to and from his ......