Patton v. American Oil Company

• Citation: Patton v. American Oil Company, 181 A. 651, 13 N.J.Misc. 825 (N.J. 1935)
• Decision Date: 26 November 1935
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: RALF C. PATTON, PETITIONER-PROSECUTOR, v. AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

181 A. 651

PATTON

v. AMERICAN OIL CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 27, 1935.

Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Burlington County.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ralf C. Patton, claimant, opposed by the American Oil Company, employer. To review a judgment of the common pleas which affirmed the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing the petition, the employee brings certiorari.

Judgment of the common pleas and that of the Compensation Bureau reversed, and case remitted.

Argued November term, 1935, before PERSKIE, J., at chambers, pursuant to statute.

Samuel P. Orlando, of Camden, for prosecutor.

Cecil W. Rotzell, of Camden, for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

This writ brings up for review a judgment of the common pleas court of Burlington county which affirmed the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing the employee's petition.

Although respondent did not admit that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, nevertheless it did not actually contest it. In fact, respondent frankly conceded, and correctly so, that under the proofs it was open to the deputy commissioner to find, as he did, that the injuries did arise out of and in the course of the employment. That question is not in this case. The real question requiring decision is whether the alleged intoxication of the employee was the "natural and proximate cause" of the injuries which he sustained.

The burden of that proof is upon the employer. Paragraph 7, section 2, Elective Compensation, c. 95, P.L. 1911 (Comp. St. Supp. 1924, § **236—7).

It is strongly urged that since the Compensation Bureau and the common pleas court so found, that this court should not disturb that finding. It is, of course, well settled that we do not lightly disturb the result reached by two independent tribunals; but it is equally well settled that we are not foreclosed by such a finding. Lazzio v. Primo Silk Co., 114 N.J. Law, 450, 177 A. 251, affirmed 115 N.J. Law, 506, 180 A. 881. The function of this court on certiorari, in these cases, "either by reason of the general language of the certiorari act (section 11 [1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 405]), or the language of the compensation act, or both, is to review questions of fact as well as of law." Gianfrancisco v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport, 165 A. 419, 420, 11 N.J.Misc. 219, 222.

But my difficulty here is more deeply rooted. It is that the determination of facts by the deputy commissioner, for the bureau, does not set forth the finding which he was required to make in order to warrant the dismissal of the petition, namely, that the intoxication of the employee was the "natural and proximate cause" of his injuries. The common pleas court made no specific finding of fact; it merely affirmed the finding and dismissal by the bureau. That, apparently, is sufficient, but it did not cure the failure of the bureau to make the required finding. Dreyfus v. Lutz Co., 142 A. 433, 6 N.J.Misc. 608, affirmed 106 N.J. Law, 566, 146 A. 913. Compare Gianfrancisco v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport, supra; Fontaine v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 170 A. 856, 12 N.J.Misc. 220.

I could perhaps with propriety stop at this point. But a discussion of the proofs will, I think, clearly indicate that the finding of the bureau does not determine the issue between the parties. Proper proofs, circumstantial or presumptive, based on deducible inferences, must alone form the basis of the employee's right to, or denial of, compensation. What are these proofs?

The American Oil Company employed Ralf C. Patton as its general sales representative in Camden and part of Burlington county. He used an automobile and quite frequently worked at night. The night of the accident, February 17, 1933, was dark, cold, and the ground was covered with about three inches of snow. Patton set out in his car, among other reasons, to inspect a pit to determine the feasibility of installing a gasoline tank there. This pit is located near Rancocas Park, in the vicinity of Masonville, Burlington county, N. J. At or near the point of the pit the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad are adjacent to and south of the main highway.

In order to reach the pit it is necessary to cross these tracks. If prosecutor's version of the accident is correct, he reached the pit, and while returning to the main highway and recrossing the tracks was hit by a locomotive attached to a train of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. On the other hand, if respondent's version of the accident is correct, prosecutor never crossed both tracks at all; he made a left-hand turn from the main highway to reach the pit and before he completely crossed both rails made another left turn so that he completed a U-shaped turn and continued on the track bed, straddling the southerly rail, for a distance of about 150 feet, when he was struck by the locomotive. The accident happened about 10:30 of the night in question.

Prosecutor suffered a fracture of his right leg, at the hip, and a dislocation. He has had two operations at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, and was confined there eight weeks after the first operation and four weeks after the second. He had a third operation at the Jewish Hospital of Philadelphia, and was confined there for twelve weeks. And apparently still has to undergo another operation.

Patton received compensation for the period from February 17, 1933, to August 4, 1933, when...