Rodesky v. City of Paterson

• Decision Date: 14 December 1940
• Citation: 17 A.2d 49,19 N.J.Misc. 35
• Parties: RODESKY v. CITY OF PATERSON (FIRE DEPARTMENT).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

17 A.2d 49

19 N.J.Misc. 35

RODESKY

v. CITY OF PATERSON (FIRE DEPARTMENT).

New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Dec. 14, 1940.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Aaron Rodesky, claimant, against the City of Paterson (Fire Department), employer, to recover compensation for the death of claimant's brother while employed as a fireman.

Petition dismissed.

Abe Jaffe, of Paterson, for petitioner.

George Surosky, of Paterson, for respondent.

STAHL, Deputy Commissioner.

The sole question in issue is whether or not the petitioner was a dependent of the decedent, either total or partial, within the intendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.1937, 34:15-13, N.J.S.A. 34:15-13. The jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and were stipulated by counsel at the outset of the trial as follows: That Louis Rodesky, deceased brother of petitioner, was regularly employed by the respondent in its Fire Department as a fireman, receiving wages of $92 semimonthly; that he met with an accident on April 12, 1938, arising out of and in the course of his employment to wit:—while assisting in the extinguishment of a fire on Prospect Street, Paterson, New Jersey, one of the walls of the building collapsed and fell upon the decedent causing his instant death; and that the respondent had actual knowledge of the mishap within a few minutes after its occurrence.

From the evidence it appears that the decedent was unmarried and made his home with the petitioner and his family at 440 East 26th Street, Paterson, New Jersey, paying board at the rate of $10 per week, and, in addition thereto, paying the monthly rent for the premises occupied by the petitioner in the amount of $45. It further appears from the evidence that the petitioner at the time of the accident and death was gainfully employed by Meyer Bros., operators of a department store in the City of Paterson, and had been for the past 2 years and still is so employed, receiving wages at the rate of $27.50 a week. His household consists of himself and his wife, there being no dependent children under the age of sixteen years. It further appears from the evidence that the petitioner, through his own frugality and resourcefulness, possesses two separate bank accounts derived primarily by savings from his earnings and through his own personal thrift.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence in this case, in my opinion, fails to establish that the petitioner at the time of the said accident and prior thereto was a dependent, either total or partial, within the meaning and purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. A dependent, under the act, is one who is sustained by another or relies for support upon the aid of another; who looks to another for reasonable...