Orange Screen Co. v. Drake
| Decision Date | 18 September 1930 |
| Citation | 151 A. 486 |
| Parties | ORANGE SCREEN CO. v. DRAKE. No. 212. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by the Orange Screen Company against Seymour Drake to review a judgment affirming a compensation award by the deputy commissioner.
Judgment affirmed, and certiorari dismissed.
Argued May term, 1930, before PARKER, CAMPBELL, and BODINE, JJ.
Turner & Stalter, of Newark, for prosecutor.
Richard Spitz, of Newark, for defendant.
The defendant was in the employ of the prosecutor as a fitter. The prosecutor manufactured and installed screens and inclosures and the work of the defendant was to go to the place where the screens, etc., were to be placed and fit and place them.
He was paid at the rate of $1 per hour, and, if traveling to and from any particular job consumed more than one hour, he was paid half time. His traveling expenses were paid by the employer, and, if he used his own car for such purpose, he was allowed a price per mile for such traveling expense.
His instructions were to go directly from his home to the particular job upon which ho happened to be working, and received instructions from prosecutor's office what pieces of work to undertake. He seldom went to the office or factory.
On July 13, 1927, he left his home at 123 Osborne terrace, Newark, to go to an installation job at 585 Prospect street, Maplewood. which he had started work upon on the preceding day.
He went by trolley, and it was necessary for him to make a change of cars at Irvington Center, and, while making this change and attempting to board another trolley car, he was struck by an automobile and injured.
The deputy commissioner who heard the matter found that from the testimony before him the defendant was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded him compensation.
This was upon appeal affirmed by the Essex county court of common pleas.
The writ of certiorari brings before us for review these proceedings and judgments which we are asked to set aside because there are no facts upon which to base the judgments that the defendant was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
We find that there was such proof, and that the matter is controlled by the adjudications in Pepoon v. Rachels, 4 N. J. Misc. R. 40, affirmed 104 N. J. Law, 183, 139 A. 923, Fisher v. Tidewater Oil Co., 96 N. J. Law, 103, 114 A. 150, affirmed 97 N. J. law, 324, 116 A. 924, Alberta Contracting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brauch v. Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co.
... ... 652; Alberta ... Contracting Corp. v. Santomassimo (N. J. L.), 150 A ... 830; Orange Screen Co. v. Drake (N. J. L.), 151 A ... 486; Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co., 192 Mich. 435, ... ...
-
Geltman v. Reliable Linen Supply Co.
...Barkman v. Meyer, 171 A. 536, 12 N.J. Misc. 287; Berry v. Silent Automatic Sales Co., Ill N.J.L. 382, 168 A. 293; Orange Screen Co. v. Drake, 151 A. 486, 8 N.J.Misc. 742. Such a collision is clearly a risk associated with or incident to the operation of the car and the employment which requ......