Monte v. Gen. Motors Corp...

• Decision Date: 18 November 1946
• Parties: MONTE v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Common Pleas

49 A.2d 591

MONTE

v.GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey, Essex County.

Nov. 18, 1946.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Robert Monte, claimant, opposed by General Motors Corporation, employer, to recover compensation for injuries. From an adverse decision of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, the claimant appeals.

Decision affirmed.

Abram A. Golden, of Newark, for petitioner-appellant.

Reid, Kelly & Flaherty, by Isidor Kalisch, all of Newark, for respondent-appellee.

HARTSHORNE, Judge.

The petitioner-employee, Monte, was a helper at the time of his injuries, acting under the orders of one Burfield. At Burfield's direction, they both went to the aid of another workman, Spinola, with whom Monte had had no previous personal relations of any moment, who was working on an acetylene gas tank with a wrench, which did not suffice, so Burfield told Monte to go get another wrench. Apparently Monte took his own time about doing so, for he admits that Spinola called to him once, or perhaps twice, ‘If you are going to get it, get going.’ To this Monte replied, ‘Who made you my boss?’ adding some unpleasant epithets. Thereupon, Burfield, the foreman, seeing that Monte, instead of going to get the wrench, as ordered, was engaging in a verbal dispute with Spinola, went to get the wrench himself. When he returned he found Monte lying on the floor, with a bloody face.

What happened while Burfield was getting the wrench, and the petitioner. Monte, was engaging in the quarrel with Spinola, is naturally somewhat in dispute. Monte says, that after he asked Spinola who made him his boss, Spinola came out of the cage, in which he had been working, toward Monte with a wrench ‘telling me what I was supposed to do and started to use abusive language’ and thereafter struck him in the face, knocking him to the ground. During this time Monte claims that he was merely ‘pulling up the zipper on my lumber jacket’ and neither attempted to strike Spinola nor called the latter names. Spinola, on the other hand (and we must bear in mind that he has no direct interest, as has Monte, in the present controversy), testifies that not only did Monte call him names, as above, but that thereafter ‘he also said he was going to take care of me, and he came towards me as if he were going to hit me,’ with further epithets. This version seems to have been believed by the Bureau, which saw and heard the witnesses.

In any event, it is clear that both Monte and Spinola stopped the work they were directed to do-Monte to get the wrench, Spinola to shut off the tank-in order to engage in a personal quarrel, leaving Burfield, the foreman, to carry out his own orders himself.

The question thus is whether Spinola's striking of Monte, in the course of this personal quarrel, which occurred during working hours and within the plant, constitutes a compensable accident.

True, the fact that Spinola's blow, which caused the injuries and consequent disability, was intentional, does not prevent the incident from being an accident. The test there is not the status of the one causing the injuries, but that of petitioner, i. e., was it unexpected as to him? Geltman v. Reliable, etc., Co., Err. & App., 128 N.J.L. 443, 25 A.2d 894, 895, 139 A.L.R. 1465.

While there may be some slight question as to the unexpectedness of the blow, even to Monte, in view of his unyielding attitude, the more difficult question is, even assuming the incident to be an accident, whether such accident arose ‘out of and in the course of the employment.’

Here again, the test is the status of petitioner in that regard, not that of his assailant, who may well have been a third party, entirely disconnected from the employment. Gargano v. Essex County News Co., 129 N.J.L. 369, 29 A.2d 879, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 559, 33 A.2d 905. The specific question...