Manigian v. Breeze Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1942
• Citation: 28 A.2d 650,20 N.J.Misc. 443
• Parties: MANIGIAN v. BREEZE CORPORATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

28 A.2d 650

20 N.J.Misc. 443

MANIGIAN

v. BREEZE CORPORATION.

New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Oct. 27, 1942.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Zareh Manigian, opposed by Breeze Corporation, a body corporate of New Jersey, employer. Determination of facts and rule for judgment. Judgment for petitioner.

Harold H. Fisher, of Newark, for petitioner.

Stanley U. Phares, of Elizabeth, for respondent.

JOHNC. WEGNER, Deputy Commissioner.

A petition was filed in the above entitled cause claiming compensation under and by virtue of the terms and provisions of an act of the legislature of the State of New Jersey, entitled "An act prescribing the liability of * * * an employe in the course of employment, establishing an elective schedule of compensation, and regulating procedure for the determination of liability and compensation thereunder," approved April 4th, 1911, P.L.134, together with the several supplements thereto and acts amendatory thereof. N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq. An answer thereto was duly filed by the respondent. The matter came on for hearing before me, John C. Wegner, Deputy Commissioner of Compensation at Newark, New Jersey.

It was allegedly testified to by the petitioner that he was in the general employ of the respondent, the Breeze Corporation, and in the capacity as an assemblyman, doing general assembly work, for which he was paid by the hour. That in addition to his work in the nature of assemblying he was permitted by the respondent company to sell milk and soda water to other employees of the respondent company on the floor, working in the same room with the petitioner. That previous to the petitioner having this privilege of selling milk and soda water, his predecessor at the same bench had the same privilege; that he received a profit of one cent per bottle on the milk and soda water which he sold; that he was not in the milk business and did not sell milk to any one other than those employed on the floor in the room with him; that while lifting a box of milk bottles he fell, breaking a bottle which in turn cut his left forearm, causing the injuries in question. All of these facts were admitted by the respondent, the respondent contending that at the moment of the injury the petitioner was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondent. From all of the testimony submitted, I find that the petitioner, on December 24th, 1941, was in the employ of the respondent; that the...