Martucci v. Koppers Co., No. 2273.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtAlexander Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff
Citation58 F. Supp. 707
PartiesMARTUCCI v. KOPPERS CO.
Decision Date17 January 1945
Docket NumberNo. 2273.

58 F. Supp. 707

MARTUCCI
v.
KOPPERS CO.

No. 2273.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

January 17, 1945.


Alexander Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff.

Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark, N. J., (Burtis S. Horner, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for defendant.

MEANEY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action and for entry of a nonsuit. By agreement of counsel no formal motion papers have been filed.

The complaint sets forth that on or about February 14, 1939, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, a corporation of the State of Delaware, plaintiff being employed in Jersey City, New Jersey. That plaintiff on the above date was treated by a servant of the defendant for a wound received by the plaintiff in his hand at the place of his employment. That as a result of the unskillful treatment the hand became infected and by reason of the infection the hand and a portion of the arm were amputated. The damages sought are for the loss of such hand and arm, for medical expenses and for pain and suffering. The plaintiff's complaint herein was instituted on May 19, 1942, some three years and three months after the alleged injury occurred.

The answer of the defendant denies the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively sets up the statute of limitations as a bar to the cause of action. Defendant further sets up the defenses that plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy is under the Workmen's Compensation Act and that a prior determination in this matter in the Compensation Court is res adjudicata and is therefore a bar to this action.

No determination of the last two defenses need be made, since it is my conclusion that the action is effectively barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The facts in brief are that plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a laborer on and prior to February 14, 1939. At that time defendant also had in its employ a duly qualified first aid superintendent who relied solely upon his own skill and ability.

58 F. Supp. 708
On the above date plaintiff reported to the first aid superintendent that he had in some manner injured his hand or wrist. The hand and wrist were treated and bandaged. Plaintiff was then referred to an independent physician. Subsequently infection set in and as a result the hand and arm were amputated. In May, 1940, following the loss of his hand, plaintiff filed a petition for compensation in the Compensation Bureau of the State of New Jersey. At the hearing plaintiff claimed his injury arose during the course of his employment and that from treatment therefor infection set in, resulting in the ultimate loss of the hand and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1961
    ...304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917); Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F.Supp. 707 (D.C.N.J.1945). In reaching this result the courts have evidently considered that the obvious injustice to the plaintiff is outweighed by broad......
  • Oroz v. American President Lines, No. 208
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 30, 1958
    ...N.J. 37, 118 A.2d 544; Weinstein v. Blanchard, Err. & App. 1932, 109 N.J.L. 332, 162 A. 601. See Martucci v. Koppers Co., D.C.N.J.1945, 58 F.Supp. 707.259 F.2d 640 The question whether laches should bar the suit is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Czaplicki v. The S.S. ......
  • Mastellone v. Argo Oil Corp., No. 359
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • September 27, 1950
    ...639; Biays v. Roberts, 68 Md. 510, 13 A. 366; Casper v. Kalt-Zimmers Mfg. Co., 159 Wis. 517, 149 N.W. 754; Martucci v. Koppers Co., D.C., 58 F.Supp. 707; Kelly v. Shropshire, 199 Ala. 602, 75 So. 291; Townsend v. Eichelberger, 51 Ohio St. 213, 38 N.E. 207; Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L.......
  • And v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Civ. No. 12-7240 (KM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 24, 2013
    ...arises out of a contractual relationship, is immaterial so far as the limitation of the action is concerned.Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F. Supp. 707, 708 (D.N.J. 1945) (quoting Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332 (E& A1932)). In Martucci, the plaintiff suffered complication arising from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1961
    ...304, 199 A. 1, 118 A.L.R. 211 (E. & A.1938); Gogolin v. Williams, 91 N.J.L. 266, 102 A. 667 (E. & A. 1917); Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F.Supp. 707 (D.C.N.J.1945). In reaching this result the courts have evidently considered that the obvious injustice to the plaintiff is outweighed by broad......
  • Oroz v. American President Lines, No. 208
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 30, 1958
    ...N.J. 37, 118 A.2d 544; Weinstein v. Blanchard, Err. & App. 1932, 109 N.J.L. 332, 162 A. 601. See Martucci v. Koppers Co., D.C.N.J.1945, 58 F.Supp. 707.259 F.2d 640 The question whether laches should bar the suit is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Czaplicki v. The S.S. ......
  • Mastellone v. Argo Oil Corp., No. 359
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • September 27, 1950
    ...639; Biays v. Roberts, 68 Md. 510, 13 A. 366; Casper v. Kalt-Zimmers Mfg. Co., 159 Wis. 517, 149 N.W. 754; Martucci v. Koppers Co., D.C., 58 F.Supp. 707; Kelly v. Shropshire, 199 Ala. 602, 75 So. 291; Townsend v. Eichelberger, 51 Ohio St. 213, 38 N.E. 207; Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L.......
  • And v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Civ. No. 12-7240 (KM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 24, 2013
    ...arises out of a contractual relationship, is immaterial so far as the limitation of the action is concerned.Martucci v. Koppers Co., 58 F. Supp. 707, 708 (D.N.J. 1945) (quoting Weinstein v. Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332 (E& A1932)). In Martucci, the plaintiff suffered complication arising from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT