Mcdonough v. Sears
| Decision Date | 16 September 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 3.,3. |
| Citation | 33 A.2d 861,130 N.J.L. 530 |
| Parties | McDONOUGH v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph McDonough, claimant, opposed by Sears, Roebuck & Company, employer. The Compensation Bureau dismissed the petition. On appeal to Common Pleas judgment was given for claimant but on appeal to Supreme Court judgment for claimant was reversed and judgment of Compensation Bureau was affirmed, 127 N.J.L. 158, 21 A.2d 314, and claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
A workman, in hospital for treatment of injury sustained in the course of employment, was warned not to smoke because the bandages were kept wet with alcohol. Disregarding the warning, he lit a match, the alcohol ignited and further injury resulted. Held, that the injury due to burning did not arise out of the employment.
William O. Consodine, of Newark, for appellant.
Frederick J. Gassert, of Newark, for respondent.
The facts are adequately stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, ubi supra. The appellant, petitioner, in a workman's compensation proceeding, was in hospital under treatment for an injured hand due to a previous accident. The treatment required the injured hand to be bandaged, and the bandage to be kept wet with alcohol. The attending physician warned appellant not to smoke, and went so far as to instruct the nurse not to let him have cigarettes or matches. Nevertheless, in some way he obtained both, and in lighting a cigarette the wet alcohol bandage caught fire and the resulting burns caused injury which was the basis of the present action. The Bureau dismissed the petition; the Common Pleas reversed the Bureau; and the Supreme Court reversed the Pleas and affirmed the Bureau.
We concur in the result reached in the Bureau and in the Supreme Court, and consider that the cigarette episode was not a ‘contributing cause’ of the second injury, but was a wholly independent cause, in no way related to or connected with the original accident or the treatment thereof. On the facts, the case closely resembles the New York case of Fischer v. R. Hoe & Co., 224 App.Div. 335, 230 N.Y.S. 755, cited on page 163 of the Supreme Court opinion in 127 N.J.L., 21 A.2d on page 317.
The judgment under review will be affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices PARKER, CASE, BODINE, PERSKIE, PORTER, and COLIE, and Judges DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp v. Lockheed Electronics, Inc.
...to the December accident. McDonough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 N.J.L. 158, 160, 21 A.2d 314 (Sup.Ct.1941), aff'd 130 N.J.L. 530, 33 A.2d 861 (E. & A. 1943); Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, 1 N.J.Super. 245, 64 A.2d 92 (App.Div.1949). Instead, the judge focused on whether the M......
-
McDougle v. Department of Labor and Industries, 36374
...was whether such conduct was that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the circumstances); McDonough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Ct.Er. & App.1943), 130 N.J.L. 530, 33 A.2d 861 (Supreme Court 1941, 127 N.J.L. 158, 21 A.2d 314), (workman had injured hand; while in hospital bandaged h......
-
Bisonic v. Halsey Packard, Inc.
...than by some other agency. McDonough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 N.J.L. 158, 160, 21 A.2d 315 (Sup.Ct.1941), affirmed 130 N.J.L. 530, 33 A.2d 861 (E. & A.1943); Selak v. Murray Rubber Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 838, 152 A. 78 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 548, 159 A. 93 (E. & With respect to th......
-
Amey v. Friendly Ice Cream Shop
...A. 78 (citations omitted); accord, McDonough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 N.J.L. 158, 163, 21 A.2d 314 (Sup.Ct.1941), aff'd 130 N.J.L. 530, 33 A.2d 861 (E. & A. 1943). However, in McDonough, the court denied petitioner's argument that the second injury would not have occurred but for the fi......