Mountain Ice Company v. Durkin
| Decision Date | 30 November 1928 |
| Citation | Mountain Ice Company v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N.J.Misc. 1111 (N.J. 1928) |
| Docket Number | 233 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOUNTAIN ICE COMPANY, PROSECUTOR, v. MARGARET DURKIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS |
Certiorari by the Mountain Ice Company to review a judgment of court of common pleas affirming an award made in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau to Margaret Durkin and others, as the survivors of Martin Durkin, deceased. Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1928, before MINTURN, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Emile Neblo, of Hoboken, for prosecutor.
Coult, Satz & Tomlinson, of Newark, for defendants.
This is a workmen's compensation case. The certiorari was allowed to review a judgment of the Essex court of common pleas, affirming an award made in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau to the petitioner, as the widow and children of Martin Durkin, deceased. It is sought to reverse the judgment on the ground that the petitioner's case is entirely barren of any proof of an accident. So, it is argued, there is nothing to indicate that, at the time of the alleged injury, the decedent was doing any particular thing, as a part of his work or otherwise. Not so. The record discloses these facts: The deceased was discovered by Michael Bohen, a fellow worker, about 10:30 a. m., February 27, 1927, in No. 1 storehouse on prosecutor's premises, lying on the floor; he was in an unconscious condition; was carried to the boiler room of the plant, and later to the City Hospital. He was received at the City Hospital almost totally unconscious. There were lacerations on the forehead; no evidence of alcohol or intoxication. Decedent died on March 2, 1927. Dr. Harrison Martland performed an autopsy on the body the following day. He gave the cause of death as follows:
The deceased worked as a watchman and fireman for the prosecutor, and at the time immediately preceding the accident, from which death resulted, his hours were from 7 a. m. until 3 p. m. every day except Sunday, when his hours were from 7 a. m. to 7 p. m. He left the plant of the company on Saturday, February 26, 1927, and was to return on Sunday, the following morning, at 7 a. m. Joseph Burness, another night watchman employed by the company, testified that on the night of February 26th he closed all the doors of the plant; that he opened the front door between 6:30 a. m. and 7 a. m. Sunday morning, expecting Durkin to come in some time between 6:30 and 7 o'clock. No. 1 storehouse where Durkin's body was found adjoined another building in the plant, known as the blower room; between the blower room and the storehouse there was a door opening from the storehouse into the blower room....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
De Moss v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co.
...37 S.W.2d 961 225 Mo.App. 473 MAE E. DeMOSS, RESPONDENT, v. EVENS & HOWARD FIRE BRICK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, EMPLOYER, AND UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO., A CORPORATION, INSURER, APPELLANTS Court ... direct proof, the finding being based on inferences arising ... from the facts proved. Mountain Ice Co. v. Derkin, ... 144 A. 6; Westman's Case, 106 A. 532, 118 Me. 133; ... Saunders v. New ... ...
-
Reynolds v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Com'rs
...workman was compelled to cross the street, where he was hit by an automobilist, disconnected from the employment. In Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N.J.Misc. 1111; Id., 105 N.J.L. 636, 147 A. 451, the Court held the injuries from a fall from a 35-foot platform, maintained by the em......
-
Furda v. Scammell China Co.
...474 (N.J.Dept.Labor 1927); Irons v. Hause Washed Gravel & Sand Co., 6 N.J.Misc. 863 (N.J.Dept.Labor 1928); Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N.J.Misc. 1111 (Sup.Ct.1928); Brooks v. Essex Warehouse Co., 137 N.J.L. 206, 59 A.2d 2 (E. & A.1948); Jochim v. Montrose Chemical Co., 3 N.J. 5,......
-
Macko v. Herbert Hinchman & Son
...v. Erie R.R. Co., 85 N.J.L. 129, 89 A. 248 (Sup.Ct.1914), affirmed 86 N.J.L. 695, 92 A. 1087 (E. & A.1914); Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N.J.Misc. 1111 (Sup.Ct.1928), affirmed 105 N.J.L. 636, 147 A. 451 (E. & A.1929); DeFazio's Estate v. Goldschmidt etc. Co., 87 N.J.L. 317, 88 A.......