Mangani v. Hydro, Inc., 7.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1937
• Docket Number: No. 7.,7.
• Citation: 194 A. 264,119 N.J.L. 71
• Parties: MANGANI v. HYDRO, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

194 A. 264

119 N.J.L. 71

MANGANI

v. HYDRO, Inc.

No. 7.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

September 22, 1937.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Suit by Vito Mangani against Hydro, Inc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

David Cohn, of Paterson, for appellant. Edwin Joseph O'Brien, of Newark, for respondent.

WELLS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Passaic Circuit, entered by direction of the court in favor of defendant, Hydro, Inc., and against the plaintiff, Vito Mangani.

On September 6, 1932, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant to perform the work of an employee, who had been given leave to attend a funeral, and was told that his work would continue until the other man returned. As he was operating a loaded hand truck, it was caught in a hole in the floor, and plaintiff contends that he sustained certain injuries in an endeavor to right the truck.

The plaintiff consulted an attorney concerning his injuries, and on November 9, 1932, filed a claim petition with the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. After a full hearing before the deputy commissioner, this claim was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff's injury was not caused or aggravated by the accident in question, but in fact was the result of causes in no way related to his employment by the defendant. The records of the bureau concerning this claim were made part of the record in the present case.

Subsequent to this determination by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, plaintiff started suit in the Supreme Court, alleging that he was a casual employee of the defendant, and that he sustained certain injuries as a result of defendant's negligence.

Upon trial of the cause, a motion was made for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant on two grounds: (1) That the determination by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau was res adjudicata as to the matters in issue, and (2) that plaintiff's own case showed that he was in fact a regular and not a casual employee. From the judgment entered for the defendant on the granting of this motion by the trial court the plaintiff appeals.

There is no dispute that the same subject matter is involved in the case at bar as was earlier submitted for determination by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. A "finding and determination" by the bureau is essentially a final judgment, and may properly be pleaded as a basis for the application of the doctrine of res adjudicata. Siberry v. National Sulphur Co., 117 N.J.Law 200, 187 A. 567; Drake v. C. V. Hill & Co., 117 N.J.Law 290, 187 A. 637; Boyle v. Van Splinter, 101 N.J. Law 89, 127 A. 257.

Plaintiff-appellant here contends that this doctrine is not applicable to the present case since the bureau made no primary finding of jurisdiction to enter the determination made by it, and such determination was thereby a nullity. Argument is made that the bureau had jurisdiction only in cases of regular, and not casual, employment; that' the bureau, being a special court of limited jurisdiction, must first make a finding of jurisdictional facts before entering a determination; and that the records of the bureau as to the plaintiff's claim do not show that this fact of jurisdiction was ever considered.

The principle upon which the plaintiff relies is ably discussed in the case of Crawford v. Lees, 84 N.J.Eq. 324, 93 A. 201. Courts of general jurisdiction need not set forth in their records the facts upon which their right to adjudicate depends. These facts are presumed, and their judgments are not open to collateral attack on this ground. Courts of special and limited jurisdiction, however, must reveal on the records the existence of jurisdictional facts. If these facts are not shown, the judgment or determination is open to collateral attack; if they...